Tests "a good guy with a gun stops the bad guy" that's bantered about.

Really good. Both pro- & anti- gun should watch.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/11/9891664/daily-show-mass-shootings

I've been saying this for years. People are people, and they WILL panic under deadly and dangerous situations. Even the ones who don't are, more likely than not, not trained to handle hostage situations. The only way that putting guns in the hands of 'good people' would even have a good chance of stopping 'bad people' from killing people with guns is if we assume that everyone with a gun a) practices (at the bare minimum) police levels of gun safety, b) does not panic when shot at, and c) can quickly and effectively analyze a situation while under pressure.

There is only one scenario that I can even think of where it might be useful to have everyone with a gun. A one-on-one scenario where there are no other people around to confuse for the shooter. That's the only one I can come up with as every single other scenario introduces layers upon layers of problems and intricacies that would just make the 'good guys' job harder and most of them even make the 'bad guys' 'job' easier.

There is a reason why the army and heavy duty police forces have a training process that can take months, if not years, to complete.

I would say that the possibility of others in the area being armed discourages some crime.

Mixed bag apparently. Some studies would agree while others say the opposite. Too many variables perhaps.

The only crime I can think of that would be discouraged by this is convenience store, grocery store, and maybe some bank robberies, but all of them carry more risk for all involved if we were to arm everyone in one of those situations.

Take a convenience store or grocery store, for instance. Most people who aren't the teller will most likely be too busy doing their own shopping to notice a 'subtle' hold-up (i.e. the use of a threat letter or oral communication that does not get the attention of other people), while a more 'loud' one should require only employees to have some means of self-defense (not necessarily a gun, but when faced with a gun, there aren't that many reliable options other than a gun). To rely on other people to be carrying weapons that aren't employees should either be too unreliable (for small stores or local chains that can't invest in security or self-defense measures), or too superfluous in that larger chains and bigger stores shouldn't have as much difficulty providing security of their investments.

Well, what about banks? Banks were robbed about 4000 times last year. . For an entire year spanning an area as large as the U.S. that's not too terribly impressive. Even then, about 1500 of them were perpetrated with the implication of a weapon while firearms use was less than 1000. Actual injuries, deaths, and hostage taking occurred in 134 instances (3 percent). Deaths from these incidents occurred in 10 of them. 1 was a customer, 2 were employees, and all 10 of them ended in the perpetrators death.

Now taking these statistics into account, lets assume we arm people, we provide basic police firearms safety training, and that everyone will follow it in all situations (which is a pipe dream in my opinion). Lets also completely remove the fact that guns can accidentally discharge in the hands of both trained and untrained individuals, which can easily result in death. Let's also completely ignore the fact that crime is committed for a multitude of reasons and sometimes death is not the only resolution. We still, STILL, have situations that are unfavorable to arming everyone almost indiscriminately and giving them basic training.

If we arm everyone then we run the risk of more gun related death by both perpetrators and victims. If you assume everyone has a gun, then you might be able to curtail petty crime or at worst bank robberies (maybe), but desperation and organized crime will not see much change. Desperation crimes do not care about the situation of the victims, only those of the perpetrator matter. In these instances there is even a chance that, given proper training and access to firearms (because we give this to everyone now), desperation crimes might actually become a lot more deadly. How many school rampages has someone say that 'if so and so's firearm hadn't broken or they hadn't run out of ammo, this could have been a lot worse.' Organized crime will simply adapt. If a person has a gun, ambush them or drug them instead of taking them by force, (which assumes that they won't just kill you on sight because everyone becomes a threat).

"Arm Everyone", given time, will help our overpopulation problem.

As you know, I'm an ex-pat from the States over here in NZ.

I have to keep explaining to people over here that even though the gun laws are more open most people don't own or at least carry a gun in public.

I do know the basic psychology behind most humans when it comes to respect and that is most humans do not respect what they can get away with taking advantage of.

I've gone through life making sure to not step on toes however my kindness and grace never won any accolade and often left me victim. I only maintain my benevolence for merely the sake of what I think about myself.

And I don't want myself to continue after this so my stance is nearly altruistic.

Others just simply don't care to continue nor do they care what they leave behind. They are fully conscience that they did not ask for this life and they will not allow themselves to be exploited for the duration they are trapped in it.

Furthermore many would prefer to make a big pain in the a** out of themselves to discourage forcing their participation again in the future while others feel that training the collective conscience to respect them requires training the collective conscience to fear them (ISIS) (also see the movie "Iron Clad" ).

Understanding the human condition; if America winds up officially unarmed, decent people will quickly become easier prey.

Disarming only disarms those who love society enough to respect the law.

17 Maps & charts:
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics/in/9198670

I don't believe that disarmament of the populace will make them safer. I completely agree that the removal of guns in the U.S. would be detrimental to safety in the short and long run, but arming everyone is not the solution either.

I want people who know how to use guns, and I mean actually use them safely and with the respect and deference that these very dangerous tools deserve, to have every right to keep a firearm. I want this because I KNOW that they will respect the power that a gun gives them and will understand how and in what form that power translates in a situation. I believe that making guns illegal is a bad idea because it will make many more people targets, but I also believe that giving everyone guns will make everyone more paranoid than ever and is very likely to result in more death dealt than prevented.

Pretty complex. The charts & graphs show such quandaries.

As long as people continue to disrespect the amount of power a firearm affords a single person, then there will always be 'accidental' deaths from firearms.

I will never advocate arming everyone, because I know exactly what happens when you give a scared populace the power to kill. History has shown us again, and again, and again that innocent people will die if you do this. I also know however that the world can be a s***ty place sometimes, that people will not always be upfront or honest with you and will routinely lie and take from you either because they have to or they want to. Guns provide a means of defense and they became the new standard weapon when it was illustrated how well they were at killing people.

But they must be respected, and currently that isn't the case. People treat firearms as a right, rather than as a weapon. These things are dangerous, not just to other people but also to themselves, and people to need to respect them for it.

Agree!

You can make stricter qualifications for the right to own a gun but I think many who snap and go a-muck with them will pass that criteria with flying colors long before they snap.

We can't stop everyone, so why stop anyone?

Maybe we should apply that same logic to our boarders / immigration / refugees / terrorists and save ourselves a lot of time, money and grief.

With the money saved by not securing our boarders, we could subsidize gun sales and make sure everyone can afford a large stash of weapons and ammo.