Arm Everyone?

I was reading the thread about the undercount of “good guy shootings” when I did what I typically do - flipped the narrative around.

The current admins narrative is “gun control” and the fear is gun confiscation - for all the reasons.

But what if you played out the reverse and armed everyone?

Say everyone over 18. Every gender, every race, every everyone. Strapped. We issue them like drivers licenses and they are all biometric coded to you and we already have ballistic data on the gun on electronic record.

Everyone uses 9mm.

You can carry it with you, leave it at home, but you are responsible for the weapon. Good news, it’s linked to your finger prints, so it’s inert when someone else grabs it.

You can open carry, closed carry, no carry, whatever.

Everyone receives mandatory training on how to operate a firearm. You must take training until you reach a certain proficiency. If you cannot meet that proficiency, you’ll be flagged as a higher vulnerability home and authorities will know you may need more help.

If you do enough bad things, you lose your gun - no different than a drivers license - and there may or may not be a way to get it back.

Every single person carrying a gun that is linked to them, multiple ways, could use that gun on any given day.

Why is everyone strapped?

My hypothesis/wonderment is that if you give people the opportunity to use lethal force, but they know with virtual certainty that outcome will be traced directly to them, you might actually reach a more peaceful society. Firearms would be treated differently. The playing field would be leveled. A smaller person now worries less about larger people - and larger people worry more about smaller people.

You’ve reached true equality - equal opportunity to defend oneself regardless of physical traits, characteristics, or sexuality. You’re checking off one of Maslow’s most basic needs for physical safety for effectively everyone.

If that hypothetical scenario played out - What would happen to the police? What would our court systems look like? Would people stay home more? Would everyone carry all the time? Would people become more polite? Less physical violence? Reduction in homicide rates? Establish greater society cohesion and common decency for one another? Bring back fist fights instead of gunfights? End half of humanity?

I could see the mental health police response units make sense in this system. Someone is having a hard time, and the altercation is only going to go so far unless someone is willing to die - and because there’s enough good people around who are also armed it’s very unlikely the perpetrator will survive the incident. You need someone who can help manager their crisis and de-escalate - not draw down on them and escalate the situation.

It would be known that if there’s a gun being brandished in a threatening way, there better be good reason behind it as that’s a serious nono in polite society.

Over time, the bad guys would be disarmed/killed/incarcerated and those who otherwise had their guns for defense only remain. Heck, do bi-annual psych evaluations just like renewing your drivers license photo. Throw enough flags and you have to come in for a talk and may temporarily lose your gun. Society would be mentally healthier - ironically, because of guns.

This thought exercise was an interesting flip of the script to me. I don’t know if this end of the extreme is a good idea (could be bad for lots of reasons), but it’s interesting to gain insights.

Maybe the goal is to get to a place where society acts as though everyone is armed, but don’t have to be armed to act that way.

And I’m not even a “gun guy”, personally. 😎

a reply to: VulcanWerks

For this thought experiment, what form or version of government are we using?

Because the one for about the past 90 years has been a thin facade.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: VulcanWerks

For this thought experiment, what form or version of government are we using?

Because the one for about the past 90 years has been a thin facade.

We can use the existing “system” for this.

Look at it this way:

You’re being issued this firearm by the state. They get your retinal scan, DNA, and fingerprint scan. So, a person who is willing to attach all of that to this one weapon probably doesn’t intend to use it unless they absolutely have to.

The gun is then mated to you and only fires if you’re holding it. Works in either hand.

Wouldn’t matter what your party affiliation is, religion of choice, ethnicity, or anything else is. If that gun does anything bad - and we have all the data on file for that weapon - there is only one person who could have shot that bullet.

Our current system could work fine.

Of course, other systems also could be better. That’s part of the learning from this thought - what system would this hypothetical armed world best operate under?

Part of the problem with this particular thought experiment is that the guns with biometrics seem to have a very high failure rate. The biometrics also add quite a bit of bulk, so most everyone would be less likely to want to carry them. Also, adding in the mandatory psych evaluations seems to be very close to "red flag laws" which are unconstitutional based on the lack of due process (innocent until proven guilty), and the fact that the 2nd Amendment plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

With the psych evaluations, how to we know that the ones doing the evaluations can be trusted to give a non-biased evaluation?

a reply to: VulcanWerks

We can use the existing “system” for this.

Then this is a non-starter for me.

The entire purpose of the Constitution is to restrict what gov't can do.

In your experiment above, every instance is interlocked with government control.


So off the cuff, lets see where this goes.

A state by state run program. How about a voucher for when you sign your voter registration?
The state can assume everyone is armed regardless of how they choose to exercise their right.

Firearm education within the public curriculum.
The state can assume everyone is at least trained on safety and use.

Local business owners who sell firearms may choose to keep relevant information on the sale of a firearm. Barrel twist marks, ballistics etc. Should they need to be subpoenaed by law enforcement, it will require a unanimous boards approval of elected representatives of that state.

My hypothesis/wonderment is that if you give people the opportunity to use lethal force, but they know with virtual certainty that outcome will be traced directly to them, you might actually reach a more peaceful society. Firearms would be treated differently. The playing field would be leveled. A smaller person now worries less about larger people - and larger people worry more about smaller people.

I think we are pretty close to this now. So close that it actually abuses people who would like to legally do so.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Your post has some flaws. The bad guy might be willing to risk that the one they are going after is a worse shot than they are. So this makes the playing fields uneven again as not everyone can shoot at the same level

The technology is not available to reliably make a gun biometrically linked to one person and still be usable in a life or death situation.

They tried marking the powder but it made the rounds unstable. I don't see a marking on a bullet being readable if it were ententionally removed ether. Who would be responsible for a shooting involving unmarked ammo? It is too easy to mold your own bullets and just swap them out in the marked bullet cartridges.

It is my opinion that 9mm is not the go to for all situations. I would have to worry more about shooting into neighbors houses, vehicles, etc.. than I would with my 12 ga shotgun. There is little danger of overpinitration with bird shot for indoor defense and I have a selection of buckshot and slugs should I need more range on the weapon.

Overall I do think everyone would be more polite than they are now. I don't see this lack of politeness now but the MSM seems to say it happens in some locations.

originally posted by: deadlysyn
Part of the problem with this particular thought experiment is that the guns with biometrics seem to have a very high failure rate. The biometrics also add quite a bit of bulk, so most everyone would be less likely to want to carry them. Also, adding in the mandatory psych evaluations seems to be very close to "red flag laws" which are unconstitutional based on the lack of due process (innocent until proven guilty), and the fact that the 2nd Amendment plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

With the psych evaluations, how to we know that the ones doing the evaluations can be trusted to give a non-biased evaluation?

Good points.

So let’s say we figured out the biometrics issue - it’s as though the system has an extremely low probability of failure and the gun is no bigger than it otherwise would be. Again, this is all hypothetical.

From the evaluation standpoint, I believe you could use existing data to figure it out.

There’s so much data out there, it would be very easy to build profiles of at-risk individuals.

Of course, remember, by receiving this state-issued fire arm, you’ve already consented to all of this. You gave DNA, retinal scan, finger prints and expressly acknowledged this is your gun.

That means that otherwise law abiding citizens are now armed at scale, and have accepted the responsibility and accountability that comes along with it.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

How many will there be to perform the evaluations? The United States has a population of nearly 335 million people. Your proposal is that these evaluations would be done annually, meaning there would need to nearly 1 million evaluations per day. Who's qualified to perform these evaluations? How can we be sure that there won't be any kind of bias in the evaluations?

There are also scenarios where a diagnosis from one of these evaluators may disqualify someone based simply on a diagnosis, like PTSD. I have had PTSD for 20 years, I have friends who also have it. It's not something that ever leaves, but we learn to manage it. Not every case will be the same.

You wouldn't see a politician out in public ever again lol.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Every adult armed would be costly ! Seeing that there are approximately 258,000,000 adults.....let's say your hi-tech 9mm costs $1200 x 258 million, than you're at around $300 billion just for the guns. Then factor in training and an administrative arm of homeland security to watch all gun toters.....probably looking at $400 billion just to get started. How about we forget all this and just let our second amendment be used as it was intended to be.......shall not be infringed !

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Yep. I'll tell you, crime dropped in states as soon as everyone was carrying.

Hard to rob someone young or old, because Granny's prob packin'...

Go for it. Ban "tools"? Then ban knives, bats, fryin pans, cars alcohol.

Make all drugs legal and arm every citizen over 18-21. Why the hell not?

originally posted by: JinMI
The entire purpose of the Constitution is to restrict what gov't can do.
In your experiment above, every instance is interlocked with government control.

^^ THAT. Gotta' go with a 'no' from me.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

You know that old saying "You don't bring a knife to a gunfight". If everyone is armed with a 9mm isn't that the same thing when facing criminals with AR-15s or anything that outperforms a 9mm? Doesn't the stick always have to get bigger?

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Introducing the Cold War mentality to your family friendly neighborhood.
If fear is the only detriment to immoral action, well still the same naked sex driven monkeys.

a reply to: VulcanWerks'

i can agree with most to a point, these i can't. and the very first other than saying i can carry, the govenenment should stay out my bidness.

Say everyone over 18. Every gender, every race, every everyone. Strapped. We issue them like drivers licenses and they are all biometric coded to you and we already have ballistic data on the gun on electronic record.

right off the bat legal age to drive 16,legal age to join the military is 17 with parents consent, old enough to die for your country, drive a car, then your old enough to do what ever is legal for people 18 to 21 and older can do. don't want no government issued stuff. i did my time with that and done with it.

biometrics? hell no, maybe for convicted violent felons , biometrics just makes it easier for the govt to screw you if they get the notion.

Everyone uses 9mm.

i'm a big stick kinda guy, the bigger the hole, less likely someone is apt to get up. plus i grudgingly comply with what the government tell me i can or can't do. damn if i want them to give me one more thing i have to follow.

but you are responsible for the weapon. Good news, it’s linked to your finger prints, so it’s inert when someone else grabs it.

not just hell no, but blank no,as i said above, that would just make it easier for the government to bone you.being responsible for something the government owns would just add more burden to people. and if it won't fire unless your holding it, let say my wife is not near hers and i'm hit and can't fight back, she can't pick mine up and save herself, my kids or me.

just leave it alone and follow the 2nd,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

just leave it like it is. granted it needs to be tweaked to keep nut jobs form getting them. but there have been and always be nutjobs, and if they set their minds to it, they will be able.
reasonable reasons, not just because somebody said so and so said this or so and so says that, and independent non government evaluating experts that are not bias one way or the other should be the deciding factors.

the first gun law in the U.S. came from this and it regraded Militia. that each and able body man equip himself with a firearm of sufficient bore. in other words no peashooters, the second law was manufacturers make firearms of sufficient bore.

some say it it was just for the militia, what is a state other than land? it's people, if you can't defend yourself from threats other than invading armies what good does it do to to have a firearm?

the answer is not more government and laws for things that have already been covered.

I think everyone (most, anyway) lost sight of the idea behind the OP thought experiment.

Everyone is hung up on the "how, why, when, how much, how heavy," etc.

That isn't what we're dissecting - there's plenty pf issues with it, primarily biometric systems being implemented on the firearm and the government having a mass profile and database of every piece of information and DNA on every living human.

On the point though, I believe OP is correct - overwhelming the playing field with that near guarantee is a good way to bring numbers of stupidity down.

Look at other countries and drinking/alcohol - we have one of the highest legal drinking ages, with the highest levels of alcohol related incidents and deaths. In other countries, the lower and easier accessibility is linked to lower rates of negative outcomes across the board.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
I was reading the thread about the undercount of “good guy shootings” when I did what I typically do - flipped the narrative around.

The current admins narrative is “gun control” and the fear is gun confiscation - for all the reasons.

But what if you played out the reverse and armed everyone?

Say everyone over 18. Every gender, every race, every everyone. Strapped. We issue them like drivers licenses and they are all biometric coded to you and we already have ballistic data on the gun on electronic record.

Everyone uses 9mm.

You can carry it with you, leave it at home, but you are responsible for the weapon. Good news, it’s linked to your finger prints, so it’s inert when someone else grabs it.

You can open carry, closed carry, no carry, whatever.

Everyone receives mandatory training on how to operate a firearm. You must take training until you reach a certain proficiency. If you cannot meet that proficiency, you’ll be flagged as a higher vulnerability home and authorities will know you may need more help.

If you do enough bad things, you lose your gun - no different than a drivers license - and there may or may not be a way to get it back.

Every single person carrying a gun that is linked to them, multiple ways, could use that gun on any given day.

Why is everyone strapped?

My hypothesis/wonderment is that if you give people the opportunity to use lethal force, but they know with virtual certainty that outcome will be traced directly to them, you might actually reach a more peaceful society. Firearms would be treated differently. The playing field would be leveled. A smaller person now worries less about larger people - and larger people worry more about smaller people.

You’ve reached true equality - equal opportunity to defend oneself regardless of physical traits, characteristics, or sexuality. You’re checking off one of Maslow’s most basic needs for physical safety for effectively everyone.

If that hypothetical scenario played out - What would happen to the police? What would our court systems look like? Would people stay home more? Would everyone carry all the time? Would people become more polite? Less physical violence? Reduction in homicide rates? Establish greater society cohesion and common decency for one another? Bring back fist fights instead of gunfights? End half of humanity?

I could see the mental health police response units make sense in this system. Someone is having a hard time, and the altercation is only going to go so far unless someone is willing to die - and because there’s enough good people around who are also armed it’s very unlikely the perpetrator will survive the incident. You need someone who can help manager their crisis and de-escalate - not draw down on them and escalate the situation.

It would be known that if there’s a gun being brandished in a threatening way, there better be good reason behind it as that’s a serious nono in polite society.

Over time, the bad guys would be disarmed/killed/incarcerated and those who otherwise had their guns for defense only remain. Heck, do bi-annual psych evaluations just like renewing your drivers license photo. Throw enough flags and you have to come in for a talk and may temporarily lose your gun. Society would be mentally healthier - ironically, because of guns.

This thought exercise was an interesting flip of the script to me. I don’t know if this end of the extreme is a good idea (could be bad for lots of reasons), but it’s interesting to gain insights.

Maybe the goal is to get to a place where society acts as though everyone is armed, but don’t have to be armed to act that way.

And I’m not even a “gun guy”, personally. 😎

Can we assume then that the government would be paying for all the guns? Given that some people would not be able to afford to buy their own? That's the only equal way you could role this out. Government pays for it all. Which automatically means most righties would be against it.

The responses have been interesting.

It makes me realize I perhaps didn’t ask the right question.

I should have asked:

Would you have a safer society if everyone was armed by state mandate?

The thought being, everyone would be armed, have training, be very clear on what is universally lawful and illegal, and have very, very few restrictions on when and where they can carry it - or they can leave it at home.

Guns would be registered to the owner once verified - and issued by the state. They are all the same. I’ll say G17s for example. What they are don’t matter, what matters is they are all the same, purchased by the state, issued to the citizen. The guns are normal in size, biometrically coded, all same caliber.

You must provide finger prints, Retina scan, and dna sample at time of state-mandated issuance.

This is truly “your” gun. And everyone has one. Everyone.

How would society function differently if that was the case?

I don’t ask this because I think we’d do it, or even that it’s a the best idea - it’s an idea, at best.

What I like about it though is accountability.

You are accountable to the actions of that specific weapon.

Today, we’re awash in registered guns, ghost guns, homemade guns - you name it.

But, last time I checked, you really couldn’t operate more than 2 firearms at once - and even that would be a Rambo, spray and pray moment.

So if everyone has 1, it doesn’t matter how many we’re awash in total. Types, maybe, but still - there’s now more good guys with guns than bad guys.

It would also become very easy to arrest people and jail them. Say, 10 years if you’re caught with a gun that doesn’t have biorecognition at all, 5 years for possessing someone’s bio-registered firearm without their consent (proven in court, obviously).

You’d round up all kinds of bad guys real, real fast.

My hope would be that the compound effect of a program like this is eventually we wouldn’t need the guns any more. Society figures out how to coexist. Peace through mutually assured destruction at the individual level.

Again, I realize my “idea” or thought exercise is fraught with peril and problems - but, it is interesting to play the extreme anti-gun crowd to the opposite extreme pro-gun crowd.

Speaking as someone who suffers from psychosis and schizoaffective disorder...I'll take a pass on having a firearm thank you very kindly.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Would you have a safer society if everyone was armed by state mandate?

The thought being, everyone would be armed, have training, be very clear on what is universally lawful and illegal, and have very, very few restrictions on when and where they can carry it - or they can leave it at home.

I get what you're trying to do, yet I feel you may be missing the point and purpose of the 2nd amendment. You have the God given right to defend yourself. Arms existed, and still existed and remain the great equalizer especially against someone else with an arm.

The government being of, for and by the people means that the government was never meant to be as big as it is nor attempt to subvert the rights of the people. Conflating a right with the government approval/denial/mandate only serves the govenrment and highlights how its not of, for and by the people.

if that makes sense.



So for the purposes of your experiment, which is rather fun IMO, lets say the government decides that firearms are illegal. You've given them all the power, technology and authority to unilaterally shut it all down.

Now your premise that if everyone knew that everyone could be armed, I'd say that's the point of the Constitution generally speaking. That on has not only the right, but the means to defend themself. FAFO...as it were.