Firearms: Self Defense, Concealed Carry, etc.

[fragbait]

Tonight, two of my friends got into a disagreement. When it became physical, a third drew a gun on the both of them to break up the fight. Now all kinds of BS happening unfortunately. I hope they can work it out.


But this brings to mind an interesting question:
In what situations would a firearm be an acceptable means of self-defense? Furthermore, when does the use of a firearm cease being Self-Defense abd start being a larger threat?

And Question number 2: Do concealed carry laws deter violence, or simply make them more likely to happen? According to statistics from the NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18) 48 states have all made law some sort of law regarding Concealed Carry, based on a 2008 Supreme Court Ruling (District of Columbia v. Heller [2008], which stated that a US citizen has:

"the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”
-Supreme Court: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)


So, in summary:
When is a Firearm acceptable as Self Defense?
Does Concealed Carry seem to deter violent crime, or does it do the opposite?

 

[Dabuz]

i believe everyone is in the right to carry a firearm when they are 21+ unless they are somewhere that firearms are taken away from everyone except people like police, if someone is attacking you, then there is no reason you should not be allowed to shoot them, people want to be as safe as possible, the only thing to note is the importance of having to keep the gun on somewhere that passerby's can see


also, i think guns actually reduce violence because of fear of having them around, people will think twice when guns are involved before getting into a fight, but if a fight with guns start, violence escalates a lot because people with guns will pull them out as well in self defense or a stray bullet hitting an innocent bystander could cause chaos

 

[Jun.]

The right to have firearms more or less originated from colonial times so that colonists can protect themselves from tyrants. The amendment was created during a time of war where colonists were afraid of not being able to defend themselves properly. Today I am sure that guns are more used for violent crimes than for self-defense. I stand by the saying "If no one had guns, no one would need to defend themselves from guns."

All in all we are all human beings and if we really wanted to kill someone we could make it happen by any means. Guns are just aiding in irrational behaviors and quick judgements due to anger and desperation.

 

[asianaussie]

A simple definition of self-defence is merely the act of defending one's person, but the question is, what from? The only act of self-defence that one would consider questionable is shooting to injure someone/something attempting to attack you. I obviously cannot comment personally, but shooting someone is an enormous matter. It quite literally concerns life and death. Shooting in self-defence would be acceptable in a state of panic or shock inflicted by an outside factor, person or stressor. Personal disposition would affect what this would entail, and as such it's difficult to determine where the fine line between 'gun-happy' and 'self-defence' lies.

I would argue that, if a situation dangerous to the person in question occurred, and the situation was most definitely provoked by an outside factor, use of a firearm is arguably acceptable. What comes into question is the magnitude of the situation. More relevantly, if use or presentation of a firearm would alleviate the tension of a situation without causing panic or creating unnecessary danger to others, it may be a valid response. Alternatively, if it could directly reduce imposed danger to one's person, it could be deemed acceptable.

I would argue concealed firearms do nothing to lower the rate of violent crime, as a good majority of people targeted for such attacks will not have such weapons on them, and violent crime will often employ firearms as well, cancelling out any deterring factor the concealed weapon would have. Stopping violent crime by adding more guns (invisible guns to boot) will only cause provocation.

 

[ballin4life]

Outlawing guns does not prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

I believe that people should be able to have weapons for self defense purposes, as long as they are not using the weapons to initiate violence against others. However, I also think there is a point where even owning a weapon constitutes aggression against others (e.g. owning a nuke). Where that line is drawn is unclear, but people ought to be able to defend themselves.

 

[jaswa]

Outlawing guns does not prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

In Australia guns are outlawed and I agree with the above statement. If guns were legalised, 'good' and 'bad' people could obtain them. As it stands now, give me $500 and an hour in a dodgy part of the city and I'll return with a gun. Either way 'bad' people can come into possession of a fiream, so the law only stops the 'good' people from obtaining a protective device.

I also think there is a point where even owning a weapon constitutes aggression against others

Can you draw this arbitrary line at all though? "Any tool held the right way is a weapon." I don't think governments can outlaw things to the point of a mitten-wearing society but I'm not too crash-hot on the idea of concealed carry. I think it's fine to keep a weapon at home for the purpose of self-defense, but in a street situation emotion can too easily haze judgement of when the right time to use it is.

 

[ballin4life]

Can you draw this arbitrary line at all though? "Any tool held the right way is a weapon." I don't think governments can outlaw things to the point of a mitten-wearing society but I'm not too crash-hot on the idea of concealed carry. I think it's fine to keep a weapon at home for the purpose of self-defense, but in a street situation emotion can too easily haze judgement of when the right time to use it is.

I would probably draw the line at some sort of massive destruction. If the weapon can only be used for massive destruction, and not self defense, then it's probably too much. I haven't though much about it though, ultimately I guess it is governed by what other people are comfortable with. Guns definitely do not satisfy that requirement. I'd have to think more about whether something like a tank would.

 

[asianaussie]

Can you draw this arbitrary line at all though? "Any tool held the right way is a weapon." I don't think governments can outlaw things to the point of a mitten-wearing society but I'm not too crash-hot on the idea of concealed carry. I think it's fine to keep a weapon at home for the purpose of self-defense, but in a street situation emotion can too easily haze judgement of when the right time to use it is.

Guns are tools designed to threaten and kill. It's that simple. It has no other designated uses. Owning a weapon *intended* to do nothing but kill is different to owning a lamp, tennis racquet or walking stick, all of which can be very dangerous weapons, and ones that you can carry around (or even conceal inside a bag, etc) without being questioned. This arbitrary line hinges on potential for destruction/terror, if you ask me.

I would probably draw the line at some sort of massive destruction. If the weapon can only be used for massive destruction, and not self defense, then it's probably too much. I haven't though much about it though, ultimately I guess it is governed by what other people are comfortable with. Guns definitely do not satisfy that requirement. I'd have to think more about whether something like a tank would.

All personal weapons that can 'destroy' can probably be used in some way for self-defence, which is the point that we return to: what is self-defence? You could argue that jumping into a tank is a form of self-defence. Firing the tank's cannon is not even necessary, so why are tanks outlawed? Simple: the potential for destruction and widespread panic it *can* cause is absurdly high.

In continuation from my previous argument, I would argue that disallowing concealed carrying is more appropriate. The chances that this law would lead to confusion/hasty judgement with weapons is much higher that that of the weapons deterring violent crime and creating a need for self-defence. Even without self defence firearms, guns can be obtained, as previously stated, so I don't see why guns should be allowed for self-defence at all - all it does is introduce more guns into the equation and make owning guns (and arguing self-defence in legal matters) easier.

 

[jaswa]

I would probably draw the line at some sort of massive destruction. If the weapon can only be used for massive destruction, and not self defense, then it's probably too much. I haven't though much about it though, ultimately I guess it is governed by what other people are comfortable with. Guns definitely do not satisfy that requirement. I'd have to think more about whether something like a tank would.

Guns were originally adapted from catapults by the Chinese (correct me if I'm wrong) which would've been used as a self-defense mechanism for a country, just as America originally did in WWII with atomic weapons. What is your definition for a WMD? I'm sure at the time when you were the sole country in possession of guns there was a lot of potential to cause harm to other armies sporting mainly swords and bows.

Guns are tools designed to threaten and kill. It's that simple. It has no other designated uses. Owning a weapon *intended* to do nothing but kill is different to owning a lamp, tennis racquet or walking stick, all of which can be very dangerous weapons, and ones that you can carry around (or even conceal inside a bag, etc) without being questioned. This arbitrary line hinges on potential for destruction/terror, if you ask me.

A knife is used for cutting bread but some people like to carry one around and stab people with it What if guns purpose as a tool is for hunting and we abuse it by carrying them around to shoot someone by our subjective judgement that "there's too much danger in this situation."

If I want I can own a gun at my home for the purpose of hunting on the weekend whilst someone can own a baseball bat at home with the intention of hitting someone who has broken into their home. This was my point about a tool being held the correct way - can we really impose laws against particular items if everyones purpose doesn't line up, maybe a better route is to better educate people on the use of guns, etc.?

 

[ballin4life]

Guns are tools designed to threaten and kill. It's that simple. It has no other designated uses. Owning a weapon *intended* to do nothing but kill is different to owning a lamp, tennis racquet or walking stick, all of which can be very dangerous weapons, and ones that you can carry around (or even conceal inside a bag, etc) without being questioned. This arbitrary line hinges on potential for destruction/terror, if you ask me.



All personal weapons that can 'destroy' can probably be used in some way for self-defence, which is the point that we return to: what is self-defence? You could argue that jumping into a tank is a form of self-defence. Firing the tank's cannon is not even necessary, so why are tanks outlawed? Simple: the potential for destruction and widespread panic it *can* cause is absurdly high.

In continuation from my previous argument, I would argue that disallowing concealed carrying is more appropriate. The chances that this law would lead to confusion/hasty judgement with weapons is much higher that that of the weapons deterring violent crime and creating a need for self-defence. Even without self defence firearms, guns can be obtained, as previously stated, so I don't see why guns should be allowed for self-defence at all - all it does is introduce more guns into the equation and make owning guns (and arguing self-defence in legal matters) easier.

Yeah and I can punch someone in the face too. BAN HANDS!

Seriously though, outlawing guns doesn't really prevent people from killing each other. It does however give the government ridiculous amounts of power. The first step in every totalitarian regime is to remove the citizen's ability to defend himself.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Firearms need to be allowed for everyone, and I firmly believe that every citizen should possess and know how to use one. I think you should use a firearm for self defense only if your life or something else that's significant is in danger. (So I wouldn't use a gun in a fist fight, but if some guy brought out a knife, sure.) I don't really care as to concealed carry laws or not: Criminals are likely going to conceal their weapons regardless, and I don't think most citizens would need to conceal theirs.

As to why each citizen should have a gun: It would cut down on crime big time, as most criminal careers would be short and painful. (Would you risk robbing someone proficient with a shotgun? Even a handgun should make most criminals think twice.) In addition, when every American can defend themselves, it would make America completely impossible to invade and control. Think about the vast effectiveness of the guerilla tactics used on us back in Vietnam. Now think of every single American capable of using said tactics. No invader would ever have a chance. (Not that invasion is a big threat NOW, but given the way our government handles things, you never know...)

Quick sidenote about non-warfare purposes of guns: Sporting competitions are a widespread use for them as well. Just watch Top Shot.

 

[fragbait]

Every citizen should be able to own a gun?
Even people who have assaulted/killed with them? I'm not down with that.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Every citizen should be able to own a gun?
Even people who have assaulted/killed with them? I'm not down with that.

So, if someone was attempting to murder you, you wouldn't shoot them? There's a bit of difference between killing in self defense and murder. And if you're talking about people who have committed crimes with guns, it still doesn't work. I mean, if they're back on the streets and able to... actually BUY a gun, then they've already paid the penalty for their crimes via prison and community service. Sure, I'd watch my back around them, but are you going to impose additional penalties on criminals beyond that decided in a court of law? Besides, even if we outlawed guns for them they could simply get a friend to buy it for them and hide it.

 

[asianaussie]

Firearms need to be allowed for everyone, and I firmly believe that every citizen should possess and know how to use one. I think you should use a firearm for self defense only if your life or something else that's significant is in danger. (So I wouldn't use a gun in a fist fight, but if some guy brought out a knife, sure.)

This is the most naive viewpoint I've ever come across. Seriously, you think that giving EVERYBODY a gun and telling them nicely to use it only in self-defence will work? Saying something for the sake of debate will only go so far. Is America devoid of extremists, racists, desperate people driven to crime, madmen or bored teenagers all of a sudden? Your scenario would never happen.

I don't really care as to concealed carry laws or not: Criminals are likely going to conceal their weapons regardless, and I don't think most citizens would need to conceal theirs.

So, you're saying that citizens can openly carry guns to deter crime? I wonder what would happen if criminals also started doing this...I mean, criminals 'likely' going to conceal their weapons means nothing. It's conjecture, as is your happy scenario. If people started openly carrying weapons, criminals could also start doing so.

As to why each citizen should have a gun: It would cut down on crime big time, as most criminal careers would be short and painful. (Would you risk robbing someone proficient with a shotgun? Even a handgun should make most criminals think twice.)

...do you really think so? As to whether you would risk robbing someone with a shotgun...if I also had a shotgun (as every citizen would), I'd be fine with it. Hell, if I was just plain desperate for money, I'd do it. In fact, it wouldn't deter crime, but increase the amount of gun violence, both in self-defence and in crime.

In addition, when every American can defend themselves, it would make America completely impossible to invade and control. Think about the vast effectiveness of the guerilla tactics used on us back in Vietnam. Now think of every single American capable of using said tactics. No invader would ever have a chance. (Not that invasion is a big threat NOW, but given the way our government handles things, you never know...)

I'm beginning to suspect trolling. The Viet Cong used ingenuity and knowledge of the terrain, with an incredibly limited number of firearms. It's incredibly different to your scenario where everyone has a gun. In fact, this guerilla argument is dumb, warfare isn't played out like that except in extreme circumstances >_>. You're just acting like an American paranoid about an asian invasion or something.

Quick sidenote about non-warfare purposes of guns: Sporting competitions are a widespread use for them as well. Just watch Top Shot.

This isn't a valid argument for firearms as self-defence, it sounds like you just want an excuse to brandish guns.

 

[Nicholas1024]

This is the most naive viewpoint I've ever come across. Seriously, you think that giving EVERYBODY a gun and telling them nicely to use it only in self-defence will work? Saying something for the sake of debate will only go so far. Is America devoid of extremists, racists, desperate people driven to crime, madmen or bored teenagers all of a sudden? Your scenario would never happen.

No, but let me point something out to you.

America today:
Only criminals and a small minority of civilians know how to use guns.

Criminal with a gun >>> civilian without a gun in any combat situation. So, civilians die, and criminals can just run wild so long as they avoid cops.

America in my hypothetical:
Everyone knows how to use guns.

Criminal with a gun = Civilian with a gun.

So, you'd expect the average criminal to get shot and die before his third crime, without even accounting for any police action.

So, you're saying that citizens can openly carry guns to deter crime? I wonder what would happen if criminals also started doing this...I mean, criminals 'likely' going to conceal their weapons means nothing. It's conjecture, as is your happy scenario. If people started openly carrying weapons, criminals could also start doing so.

Okay, fair enough.

...do you really think so? As to whether you would risk robbing someone with a shotgun...if I also had a shotgun (as every citizen would), I'd be fine with it. Hell, if I was just plain desperate for money, I'd do it. In fact, it wouldn't deter crime, but increase the amount of gun violence, both in self-defence and in crime.

You'd take 50-50 odds of life or death? Look, today every criminal has a gun, most civilians don't. Guess who has a huge advantage. If every civilian has a gun, this advantage is eliminated. Half of the criminals would die without actually succeeding in a single crime.

I'm beginning to suspect trolling. The Viet Cong used ingenuity and knowledge of the terrain, with an incredibly limited number of firearms. It's incredibly different to your scenario where everyone has a gun. In fact, this guerilla argument is dumb, warfare isn't played out like that except in extreme circumstances >_>. You're just acting like an American paranoid about an asian invasion or something.

You think Americans don't know at least the immediate area around their house? We'd certainly know more about our OWN COUNTRY than any invader. And let me tell you, guerilla warfare works brilliantly against any invader not prepared to commit genocide. It's why we lost in Vietnam, it's why communist russia collapsed in Afghanistan, and it's how Switzerland avoided BOTH world wars. (To clarify: Any invader that tried to occupy switzerland would get massacred via guerilla warfare. It's why nobody ever tried.) Actually, Switzerland is an excellent model. There just about every fit young male knows how to use a rifle, and they're among the lowest in murders. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

And as for warfare, the politicians are driving this country towards economic collapse. When that happens, it won't be pretty, and I'm sure there are plenty of foreign nations we've infuriated in the past that might enjoy a little payback.

This isn't a valid argument for firearms as self-defence, it sounds like you just want an excuse to brandish guns.

If all I wanted was an excuse to brandish guns, I'd join the army. I'm just pointing out that not everyone owning a firearm is the gun-wielding maniac you make them out to be.

 

[asianaussie]

So in other words, you say that killing in self-defence is perfectly fine...

Think. Not everyone has the conviction to kill someone, or live with killing someone. Many people are pacifists who will refuse to use guns. Trying to remove gun crime by putting more guns into the situation is literally fighting fire with more fire - everyone ends up burned.

You haven't addressed my point that arming everyone may stop some criminals, but having everyone with a firearm would be unnecessarily dangerous and would in fact breed more crime than it stops. It doesn't matter what country it is, you cannot trust everybody with guns, because there will also be people with poor judgement, people who abuse this newfound widespread gun and people who will misunderstand situations and cause unnecessary carnage. Not only that, but criminals would have to resort to even more extreme measures - killing absolutely everybody in a hostage situation, for instance.

When I say guerilla warfare isn't particularly valid, I mean that anyone with the balls to invade America won't be doing it by parachuting troops (who will be much better trained than civilians in America anyway) into the country. They will fire bombs from afar or raid America in war machines.

You're throwing out potential crises as reason to further arm everybody in the nation with the most nuclear firepower on the planet. It seems like you're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

 

[Nicholas1024]

So in other words, you say that killing in self-defence is perfectly fine...

Think. Not everyone has the conviction to kill someone, or live with killing someone. Many people are pacifists who will refuse to use guns. Trying to remove gun crime by putting more guns into the situation is literally fighting fire with more fire - everyone ends up burned.

Then they won't shoot (or at least not shoot to kill), and it's as if they never got guns in the first place. What's your problem?

You haven't addressed my point that arming everyone may stop some criminals, but having everyone with a firearm would be unnecessarily dangerous and would in fact breed more crime than it stops. It doesn't matter what country it is, you cannot trust everybody with guns, because there will also be people with poor judgement, people who abuse this newfound widespread gun and people who will misunderstand situations and cause unnecessary carnage. Not only that, but criminals would have to resort to even more extreme measures - killing absolutely everybody in a hostage situation, for instance.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't add up. I mean, if you're in a room with 20 people, and you're the only one with a gun, then obviously nobody's going to try and stop you. However, if EVERYONE has a gun, then at a few people are going to draw and point theirs at you. You might manage to kill one or two people, but you'll be riddled with bullets by the end of the incident. And that's the point. Anybody that tries to cause trouble is likely going to get shot because of it, which means only people that are downright suicidal would try it. (And gun control laws wouldn't stop them from getting one and shooting people.)

As for the criminals killing everyone in a hostage situation... doesn't that defeat the point of having hostages? And how would they get the hostages in the first place? When everyone has a gun, the criminal has a good chance of being shot at any point.

When I say guerilla warfare isn't particularly valid, I mean that anyone with the balls to invade America won't be doing it by parachuting troops (who will be much better trained than civilians in America anyway) into the country. They will fire bombs from afar or raid America in war machines.

You think that wasn't tried in Vietnam/Afghanistan? There are plenty of ways to get around that. If guerilla warfare doesn't work, how come we couldn't defeat it in Vietnam? And yes, it doesn't stand up much to the initial invasion, but it makes occupation a nightmare (which is really the point of invasion, is it not?). When every enemy soldier finds that every civilian will kill him if he let's his guard down for a moment... trust me, the only way to beat guerilla warfare is genocide. And also, do you really think that any troops will be better trained than civilians in their own country? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. If that was possible, why didn't we do it in Vietnam?

You're throwing out potential crises as reason to further arm everybody in the nation with the most nuclear firepower on the planet. It seems like you're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

My position is historically grounded here. The government has been inflating and debasing our money supply for a century, causing our economy to become increasingly unstable. And of course, they try to cure it with more of the same. If that's not a recipe for disaster, then I don't know what is.

Sidenote:
I like how you completely ignored my point about switzerland actually putting into practice what I suggested, and having one of the lowest murder rates per capita of EVERY country. Totally blows your theories out of the water, doesn't it?

 

[jaswa]

Sidenote:
I like how you completely ignored my point about switzerland actually putting into practice what I suggested, and having one of the lowest murder rates per capita of EVERY country. Totally blows your theories out of the water, doesn't it?

Hold up for a second, it's still low in the following list but you might've missed this. It's murders with firearms (per capita) which is more what you're aiming at (couldn't help but to edit the pun in )

 

[Nicholas1024]

Hold up for a second, it's still low in the following list but you might've missed this. It's murders with firearms (per capita) which is more what you're aiming at (couldn't help but to edit the pun in )

Actually, I saw that, but murder is murder, right? Either way somebody dies, so what's the difference if it's via knife or by gun? Although, either way it's far below the US in the list.

 

[jaswa]

Actually, I saw that, but murder is murder, right? Either way somebody dies, so what's the difference if it's via knife or by gun? Although, either way it's far below the US in the list.

But in reference for me it's changed my standing.

If you look at the murder list you have:
United Stats > Australia > Switzerland
Because of:
Gun legalisation > nothing > gun legalisation and education

However when looking at firearm deaths per capita, it is shown that firearm deaths in a country without the legalisation of guns at all is lower than with gun legalisation whether or not it is in conjunction with education.

So do you think the amount of murders 'saved' by educated people owning guns outweighs the amount of firearm deaths the country has over one without the legalisation of guns at all?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Just a quick question, but do you mean that in australia guns aren't allowed at all? Or that there are no restrictions on them?

 

[jaswa]

Just a quick question, but do you mean that in australia guns aren't allowed at all? Or that there are no restrictions on them?

More or less aren't allowed at all.

So small minorities can obtain them, eg. owning a pistol but keeping it at a club, owning a rifle on a farm like property, and my friend who has a farm also has a shotgun for 'pest-control' if wild animals etc. But in mainstream society noone is allowed to own guns at all really.

So the amount that legal gun owners would factor into 'saving murders' and 'committing firearm murders' would be a negligible statistic.

 

[asianaussie]

You can't possibly mean to say that the only reason Switzerland's murder count is lower than Australia's is because they have guns. In fact, if that's the only example you have, we can disregard it as an outlier. I ignored your point because it was idiographic: a single example that can't be regarded as a trendsetter.

Arming everybody *MIGHT* reduce the crime rate. What you've ignored is that it also introduces a ridiculously unnecessary and extraordinary danger into society: everyone has a gun and is capable of inflicting grievous harm. What if everyone ganged up on one person? Gun crime isn't limited to a individual action. If a group of people, all with guns, burst into a shop, would the shopkeeper say 'I have a gun you can't hurt me' or put his hands up before he dies? What are you going to do, hand out guns at Walmart? What about ex-convicts? What about mentally disabled people? What about pacifists?

 

[Nicholas1024]

You can't possibly mean to say that the only reason Switzerland's murder count is lower than Australia's is because they have guns. In fact, if that's the only example you have, we can disregard it as an outlier. I ignored your point because it was idiographic: a single example that can't be regarded as a trendsetter.

Arming everybody *MIGHT* reduce the crime rate. What you've ignored is that it also introduces a ridiculously unnecessary and extraordinary danger into society: everyone has a gun and is capable of inflicting grievous harm. What if everyone ganged up on one person? Gun crime isn't limited to a individual action. If a group of people, all with guns, burst into a shop, would the shopkeeper say 'I have a gun you can't hurt me' or put his hands up before he dies? What are you going to do, hand out guns at Walmart? What about ex-convicts? What about mentally disabled people? What about pacifists?

It's the only example I have because it (to the best of my knowledge) is the only country where everyone knows how to use a gun. Since it's only one example it isn't complete proof, but it is a nice argument in favor of free access to guns.

Also, I have in no way ignored the "everyone is capable of inflicting grievous harm." Think, man. What do you call someone who commits a crime? A criminal. Which group of people has the most access to guns? The criminals. Even if we outlawed guns for everyone (and succesfully kept them out of the hands of criminals somehow), it just changes things to less advanced weapons. I don't care if he's up against 20 knives or 20 guns, that shopkeeper is in trouble either way.

Also, the hand out guns at walmart thing is stupid. There's obviously places where you can (you know) BUY guns. I'd simply remove the restrictions. Why on earth would a pacifist be buying a gun in the first place? How would a mentally disabled person buy a gun? They wouldn't be able to actually use it. And as for ex-convicts, knives can be a deadly weapon. Shall we prevent them from buying those? Same with certain tools (like the classic chainsaw). Shall we keep him away from those? And finally, what's to prevent him from simply getting a friend to buy his gun for him?

@Jaswa
I think the murders statistic includes the firearm deaths one. So, although firearm deaths increase somewhat when guns are allowed for everyone, the corresponding decrease in non-firearm deaths more than makes up for it.