Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 05 2013 03:23 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one argues that more responsible regulation will outright eliminate all instances of firearm misuse -- whether criminal homicide, accidental injury, suicide, or whatever else.
On May 05 2013 03:23 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one argues that more responsible regulation will outright eliminate all instances of firearm misuse -- whether criminal homicide, accidental injury, suicide, or whatever else.
edit 1 sec
lol, too fast, too furious!
Yea I didn't look closely at the context and completely missed what he meant by 'no one argues that.' I thought he meant 'nobody argues against the fact that'
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote: If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
Lol what kind of analogy is that? I dont think cars and weapons have the same purpose. Just saying.
You're right, I've never used my car to run over targets for sport, run over game for food for my family, and never to run down a criminal to protect my own life and liberty.
I agree. One clear factor mentioned by a lot of people who spend their time thinking about this issue is the fact that some 200-300 million guns will be in circulation at the time any steps are made. So the effect of these steps may not be clear until after decades have passed, and I would not argue against it being possible that some things may get worse as a temporary result, before they get better.
On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote: Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much.
Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West). and you're funny if you think taxing too much is a form of tyranny lol.
You are truly ignorant if you believe tyranny 'like that' doesn't exist anymore. The reason 'the West' (please define) isn't as oppressed by government is because a lot of people have died t o make it that way. Why should they give up their tools that give them the ability to keep it that way?
Taxing 'too much' (again, define) is tyranny. I will break it down for you:
1) Someone that you did not personally agree (if you didn't vote for them) to have power over you (the Federal government) says that you owe them money.
2) You choose not to pay it.
3) A man with a gun(Police) shows up at your house, and either takes your property, or takes your freedom(prison), or takes your life if you try to fight.
This is pretty disingenuous, don't you think? You're perfectly free to renounce your American citizenship and move to a different country if you don't wish to pay taxes to the American government. The fact that you occupy American land (eminent domain etc.) and operate within the American economy, use American services, and benefit from the protection of the American military/courts/government/constitution means that you are obligated to pay taxes.
How is this tyrannical? Nobody is forcing you to pay. They're forcing you to pay if you wish to continue to be an American resident/citizen/operate within the American economy because that's the law as agreed upon by the majority of people who operate within that jurisdiction. Where's the tyranny?
If you don't like the fact that you have to abide by laws passed by a Congress you didn't vote for, then your real problem is with the Constitution which allocates lawmaking power to that body. If you don't like this, either propose an amendment to your Constitution or start your own nation in which you're permitted to only pay for laws with which you agree. Don't expect many people to join you, though.
So you need these "tools" to protect yourself from policemen, politicians, and paying taxes? Interesting... or should I say, highly disturbing...
This is pretty disingenuous, don't you think? You're perfectly free to renounce your American citizenship and move to a different country if you don't wish to pay taxes to the American government. The fact that you occupy American land (eminent domain etc.) and operate within the American economy, use American services, and benefit from the protection of the American military/courts/government/constitution means that you are obligated to pay taxes.
How is this tyrannical? Nobody is forcing you to pay. They're forcing you to pay if you wish to continue to be an American resident/citizen/operate within the American economy because that's the law as agreed upon by the majority of people who operate within that jurisdiction. Where's the tyranny?
Read his sig Shiori. Logic means nothing in the face of Ron Paul's populist politics. They are the sort that thinks that everyone who is poor or in a state of misfortune deserves it; the notion of opportunity or the bonds of society are utterly unimportant to them.
Prepare for some sort of literalist reference to the Constitution and how, since it doesn't make explicit reference to the tax structure present today, the federal government is a cult of altruistic wealth distribution that seeks to turn us into the Soviet Union.
You don't know what you're talking about lol. I won't bother defining what a tyranny is, just open a dictionary.. But your government should not be what YOU want it to be, it is what the majority want it to be (that's the point of a democracy ^^). Moreover, if you dont agree with this government you're free to leave the country. The US (i'll talk about the US because it seems like that's the issue here) is a legitimate gouvernement, with legitimate laws, considering that, you MUST follow the rules even though you disagree with them. It's not about YOU as a person, but about the society as a whole.
Before you guys jump all over my signature, yes I do subscribe to some views that Ron Paul was a proponent of.
Let me try to clear up some premature conclusions that you guys brought into this while reading my reply.
I never said that the U.S. government was a tyranny, I never mentioned any country.
I never said that I thought that reasonable taxes were tyrannical.
I like most of the things about my government, why would I want to revoke my citizenship? I understand that's my right, I'm not exercising it because I think this is a great country. Is it madness to be an advocate of a more balanced approach?
I was speaking purely in hypothetical, I meant Federal in the sense that it wasn't a local municipality government, probably a poor choice, considering it is a buzz word.
I was merely trying to define how a modern government could become a tyrannical one. I never said that I believed that the U.S. government was one.
So please let me try to restate my point.
I said, if there is someone you don't vote for, that takes your property and/or life with force, how is that not tyranny?
Please be civil, sometimes I am shocked at who all of you guys are so 'open', and promote free choices and alternative worldviews, but jump down the throat of anyone you suspect isn't aligned with you on something.
Yes, I'm a United States citizen, I support limited government. Fuck me right?
edit: apparently I'm completely inadequate when it comes to quoting, don't have time to troubleshoot that. apologies.
Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
On May 05 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote: Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
I understand what you are saying. I completely agree.
Other than moving away, because the alternatives are usually less to my liking, as you pointed out, my other option would be to try to change the government right?
That's all. I'm not interested in arguing, I think it was a mistake to post here in the first place.
On May 05 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote: Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
I understand what you are saying. I completely agree.
Other than moving away, because the alternatives are usually less to my liking, as you pointed out, my other option would be to try to change the government right?
That's all. I'm not interested in arguing, I think it was a mistake to post here in the first place.
Thanks for your reply.
I don't think it a mistake that you posted in here, and I apologize for the pointed words. I have a hard time divesting myself from previous experiences with Ron Paul fans in which they made it abundantly clear that no amount of reasoning nor argumentation would change their minds, so I thank you for the cordial responses. Though this conversation would likely be better in the US politics thread, I'd be curious to know what makes you a fan of Ron Paul as opposed to Jon Hunstman. Perhaps I'll see you over there.
On May 04 2013 08:57 FallDownMarigold wrote: The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
The data you would need to find the source of gun violence lies in human psychology, not access to guns.
On May 04 2013 09:03 AdamBanks wrote:
On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote: @ Elem and Sunprince
The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down.
It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist"
Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense?
On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote: Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that.
The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5
edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here.
First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ???
Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance".
Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms.
Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking.
Saying it's my right to take away your right is hypocritical and irrational, just as saying tolerate my intolerance is hypocritical and irrational.
You did exaggerate and more than slightly, it isn't like 9/10 people are walking around with loaded guns at their disposal, I imagine a vast majority of them keep their guns at home.
I just want to note, that Switzerland has a population of 8 million people and is one of the richest countries in the world. Their military is almost entirely conscripted. All men in Switzerland are required to undergo compulsory military service at 19, and keep personally assigned equipment, including weapons, at home.
Not only are many guns issued directly from the government and in a sense 'registered', most civilians have training that far exceeds that of the average US gun owner. Comparing Chicago and Switzerland is like comparing apples with zebras.
You missed my entire point: Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
I should also add, could it be that the gun laws in an area have a very insignificant impact on violent crimes?
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
Here's a description of Switzerland's 'gun-loving' policy, for anyone's interest. Firearms and ammunition are far more regulated there than anywhere in the States.
The key difference is that their gun culture is rooted in social responsibility and civic duty, not 'the right to bear arms and shoot a pile of dirt with a semi-automatic'. While you can keep a gun for personal use, most men in Switzerland are required to serve in their militia and are issued guns and equipment by the government. Ammunition, and where you can shoot, is heavily regulated.
Switzerland has NOTHING in common with American gun culture, which seems obsessed with protecting 'the freedom' of allowing almost anyone to purchase and operate a gun legally, with as few restrictions as possible. If anything, Switzerland's gun legislation and culture is the absolute antithesis of America's.
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.[citation needed] Keeping the weapon after end of service requires a license.
The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.[6]
How is Switzerland's gun legislation the antithesis of the United States? My only reason for comparing Chicago to Switzerland was to show that strict gun laws and low amounts of gun ownership don't necessarily mean low violent crime rates and that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high crime rate. Are you suggesting that our problem is that we need to give more people guns and train them to use them properly?
I'm not trying to pick an argument with you, but I thought comparing to Switzerland and the States was amusing, and made me think about how weird, passionate and divided American gun culture actually is.
Describing Switzerland as 'gun-loving' is a very, very America-way of describing their unique relationship with guns. It's a unintentional projection of American gun politics and culture onto them, which divides gun politics in two camps , 'Gun Lovers' and 'Gun Haters'.
I just think that it's interesting that Switzerland's relationship is obviously different. They aren't 'gun-lovers', in the sense that they don't treat guns necessarily as toys, frivolous entertainment or things you 'play' with. They seem to treat it as an actual tool that everyone should know how to use properly, like a driving a motorcycle or using a table saw.
The problems in the States go way beyond more training and higher standards or gun ownership, although I certainly believe that would help. Basically America would need to magically reboot their entire identity and social system to be anything like Switzerland. The glorification and romanticization of guns, violence and firepower is pervasive in every aspect of American culture and history, from Zero Dark Thirty to drone strikes to gangsta rap to Clint Eastwood. I don't think the Swiss market single-shot rifles to kids or make videos of themselves pretending to be action heroes.
To be entirely honest, American gun politics and values have more in common with Pakistan than Switzerland.
In no particular order, early Pakistani settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes: Deterring a tyrannical government;[3] Repelling an invasion;[4] suppressing insurrection; Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;[5] Participating in law enforcement;[6] Enabling the people to organize a militia system.[7]
On May 04 2013 08:57 FallDownMarigold wrote: The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
The data you would need to find the source of gun violence lies in human psychology, not access to guns.
On May 04 2013 09:03 AdamBanks wrote:
On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote: @ Elem and Sunprince
The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down.
It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist"
Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense?
On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote: Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that.
The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5
edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here.
First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ???
Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance".
Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms.
Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking.
Saying it's my right to take away your right is hypocritical and irrational, just as saying tolerate my intolerance is hypocritical and irrational.
You did exaggerate and more than slightly, it isn't like 9/10 people are walking around with loaded guns at their disposal, I imagine a vast majority of them keep their guns at home.
I just want to note, that Switzerland has a population of 8 million people and is one of the richest countries in the world. Their military is almost entirely conscripted. All men in Switzerland are required to undergo compulsory military service at 19, and keep personally assigned equipment, including weapons, at home.
Not only are many guns issued directly from the government and in a sense 'registered', most civilians have training that far exceeds that of the average US gun owner. Comparing Chicago and Switzerland is like comparing apples with zebras.
You missed my entire point: Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
I should also add, could it be that the gun laws in an area have a very insignificant impact on violent crimes?
On May 04 2013 18:15 Defacer wrote:
On May 04 2013 09:07 kmillz wrote:
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
Here's a description of Switzerland's 'gun-loving' policy, for anyone's interest. Firearms and ammunition are far more regulated there than anywhere in the States.
The key difference is that their gun culture is rooted in social responsibility and civic duty, not 'the right to bear arms and shoot a pile of dirt with a semi-automatic'. While you can keep a gun for personal use, most men in Switzerland are required to serve in their militia and are issued guns and equipment by the government. Ammunition, and where you can shoot, is heavily regulated.
Switzerland has NOTHING in common with American gun culture, which seems obsessed with protecting 'the freedom' of allowing almost anyone to purchase and operate a gun legally, with as few restrictions as possible. If anything, Switzerland's gun legislation and culture is the absolute antithesis of America's.
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.[citation needed] Keeping the weapon after end of service requires a license.
The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.[6]
How is Switzerland's gun legislation the antithesis of the United States? My only reason for comparing Chicago to Switzerland was to show that strict gun laws and low amounts of gun ownership don't necessarily mean low violent crime rates and that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high crime rate. Are you suggesting that our problem is that we need to give more people guns and train them to use them properly?
I'm not just to pick an argument with you, but I just thought comparing to Switzerland and the States was amusing, and made me think about how weird, passionate and divided American gun culture actually is.
Describing Switzerland as 'gun-loving' is a very, very America-way of describing their unique relationship with guns. It's a unintentional projection of American gun politics and culture onto them, which divides gun politics in two camps , 'Gun Lovers' and 'Gun Haters'.
I just think that it's interesting that Switzerland's relationship is obviously different. They aren't 'gun-lovers', in the sense that they don't treat guns necessarily as toys, frivolous entertainment or things you 'play' with. They seem to treat it as an actual tool that everyone should know how to use properly, like a driving a motorcycle or using a table saw.
The problems in the States go way beyond more training and higher standards or gun ownership, although I certainly believe that would help. Basically America would need to magically reboot their entire identity and social system to be anything like Switzerland. The glorification and romanticization of guns, violence and firepower is pervasive in every aspect of American culture and history, from Zero Dark Thirty to drone strikes to gangsta rap to Clint Eastwood. I don't think the Swiss market single-shot rifles to kids or make videos of themselves pretending to be action heroes.
In no particular order, early Pakistani settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes: Deterring a tyrannical government;[3] Repelling an invasion;[4] suppressing insurrection; Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;[5] Participating in law enforcement;[6] Enabling the people to organize a militia system.[7]
I think it would surprise you how many Americans that are in the "gun-loving" camp actually feel exactly this way and why they defend the right to own them so fervently.
On May 04 2013 08:57 FallDownMarigold wrote: The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
The data you would need to find the source of gun violence lies in human psychology, not access to guns.
On May 04 2013 09:03 AdamBanks wrote:
On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote: @ Elem and Sunprince
The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down.
It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist"
Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense?
On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote: Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that.
The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5
edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here.
First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ???
Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance".
Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms.
Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking.
Saying it's my right to take away your right is hypocritical and irrational, just as saying tolerate my intolerance is hypocritical and irrational.
You did exaggerate and more than slightly, it isn't like 9/10 people are walking around with loaded guns at their disposal, I imagine a vast majority of them keep their guns at home.
I just want to note, that Switzerland has a population of 8 million people and is one of the richest countries in the world. Their military is almost entirely conscripted. All men in Switzerland are required to undergo compulsory military service at 19, and keep personally assigned equipment, including weapons, at home.
Not only are many guns issued directly from the government and in a sense 'registered', most civilians have training that far exceeds that of the average US gun owner. Comparing Chicago and Switzerland is like comparing apples with zebras.
You missed my entire point: Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
I should also add, could it be that the gun laws in an area have a very insignificant impact on violent crimes?
On May 04 2013 18:15 Defacer wrote:
On May 04 2013 09:07 kmillz wrote:
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
Here's a description of Switzerland's 'gun-loving' policy, for anyone's interest. Firearms and ammunition are far more regulated there than anywhere in the States.
The key difference is that their gun culture is rooted in social responsibility and civic duty, not 'the right to bear arms and shoot a pile of dirt with a semi-automatic'. While you can keep a gun for personal use, most men in Switzerland are required to serve in their militia and are issued guns and equipment by the government. Ammunition, and where you can shoot, is heavily regulated.
Switzerland has NOTHING in common with American gun culture, which seems obsessed with protecting 'the freedom' of allowing almost anyone to purchase and operate a gun legally, with as few restrictions as possible. If anything, Switzerland's gun legislation and culture is the absolute antithesis of America's.
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.[5]
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.[citation needed] Keeping the weapon after end of service requires a license.
The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, when the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib, one of the charges was improper use of service weapons.[6]
How is Switzerland's gun legislation the antithesis of the United States? My only reason for comparing Chicago to Switzerland was to show that strict gun laws and low amounts of gun ownership don't necessarily mean low violent crime rates and that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high crime rate. Are you suggesting that our problem is that we need to give more people guns and train them to use them properly?
I'm not just to pick an argument with you, but I just thought comparing to Switzerland and the States was amusing, and made me think about how weird, passionate and divided American gun culture actually is.
Describing Switzerland as 'gun-loving' is a very, very America-way of describing their unique relationship with guns. It's a unintentional projection of American gun politics and culture onto them, which divides gun politics in two camps , 'Gun Lovers' and 'Gun Haters'.
I just think that it's interesting that Switzerland's relationship is obviously different. They aren't 'gun-lovers', in the sense that they don't treat guns necessarily as toys, frivolous entertainment or things you 'play' with. They seem to treat it as an actual tool that everyone should know how to use properly, like a driving a motorcycle or using a table saw.
The problems in the States go way beyond more training and higher standards or gun ownership, although I certainly believe that would help. Basically America would need to magically reboot their entire identity and social system to be anything like Switzerland. The glorification and romanticization of guns, violence and firepower is pervasive in every aspect of American culture and history, from Zero Dark Thirty to drone strikes to gangsta rap to Clint Eastwood. I don't think the Swiss market single-shot rifles to kids or make videos of themselves pretending to be action heroes.
To be entirely honest, American gun politics and values have more in common with Pakistan than Switzerland.
In no particular order, early Pakistani settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes: Deterring a tyrannical government;[3] Repelling an invasion;[4] suppressing insurrection; Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;[5] Participating in law enforcement;[6] Enabling the people to organize a militia system.[7]
I think it would surprise you how many Americans that are in the "gun-loving" camp actually feel exactly this way and why they defend the right to own them so fervently.
Actually, it wouldn't. I'm sure there are American gun-owners out there that wished that everyone, including other gun owners, took guns more seriously.
You often hear American gun owners defend guns as necessary 'tools'. But it would be naive to pretend that isn't a large percentage of current and prospective gun owners that treat guns frivolously, as toys or collectibles.
For every serious gun owner, there's a lip-smacking knucklehead.
On May 05 2013 02:04 BillGates wrote: Of course, because in history tyrants have always wanted to disarm the people so they can get away with whatever tyranny they want to establish. An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry and a rock solid protection against tyranny in government.
Its the first line of defense against common criminals and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government that tries to take people's rights and taxes them too much.
Rofl you talk like we were living 200 years ago. We are in 2013, the tyranny you're talking about does not exist nowdays. (at least in the West)
I bet there are many times in history shortly before obvious tyranny where people were saying how nice it is not to have to worry about Tyranny anymore. I think Tyranny can only be avoided when you take action to prevent it rather than assume we have outgrown it.
Those of us living since the 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc, might feel lulled into a false sense of security that we came along late enough to miss the problems that plagued mankind for thousands of years, but society is not exempt from any of these threats now or in the future.
So, you say : «I think Tyranny can only be avoided when you take action to prevent it rather than assume we have outgrown it.»
That's where I think you're wrong, I study international relations, and I can tell you that considering the way the world is evolving, there's no way a form of totalitarian state could emerge in the west. Combined to liberalization, the judicialization makes societies sheltered from tyranny, in this perspective, the citizens do not have to take actions to avoid anything. That's why im saying we are in 2013, our political systems are totally safe.The old american ideology is 100% outdated, I understand the cultural aspect, but the world has changed and you have to consider it.
Joke or serious? Because the Chinese might want to disagree with you when Mao too power just about 50 years ago, the Europeans might want to disagree with you when Hitler took power just about 70 years ago, of course about 100 years and then about 60 years ago when Stalin and Lenin took over in Russia, of course in between all these you had Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Nicolae Ceausescu, Idi Amin, on and on just in the 20th century.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and believe you me, human nature never changes and there will always be the possibility of a tyrant or a group of tyrants these days of taking over.
On May 05 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote: Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
Maybe African Americans should've looked elsewhere in the 50s, when they still passed Jim Crowe bullshit all the time. Maybe the Hippies should've just left if they hated the Vietnam War so much. Maybe the religious right should just move if they don't like Gay Marriage so much.
I'm well aware that you have to put up with SOME decisions you don't like, but the idea that you just have to take whatever the majority says all the time is absolutely ridiculous. There comes a time when enough is enough, and you shouldn't just sit quiet and take it.
On May 05 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote: Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
Maybe African Americans should've looked elsewhere in the 50s, when they still passed Jim Crowe bullshit all the time. Maybe the Hippies should've just left if they hated the Vietnam War so much. Maybe the religious right should just move if they don't like Gay Marriage so much.
I'm well aware that you have to put up with SOME decisions you don't like, but the idea that you just have to take whatever the majority says all the time is absolutely ridiculous. There comes a time when enough is enough, and you shouldn't just sit quiet and take it.
I'm well aware of that, and none of that conflicts with a thing I said.
On May 05 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote: Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
Maybe African Americans should've looked elsewhere in the 50s, when they still passed Jim Crowe bullshit all the time. Maybe the Hippies should've just left if they hated the Vietnam War so much. Maybe the religious right should just move if they don't like Gay Marriage so much.
I'm well aware that you have to put up with SOME decisions you don't like, but the idea that you just have to take whatever the majority says all the time is absolutely ridiculous. There comes a time when enough is enough, and you shouldn't just sit quiet and take it.
But the correct course of action is to try to change the views of the majority. Otherwise, not sitting quietly and taking it could be interpreted in dangerous ways.
On May 05 2013 03:51 farvacola wrote: Your premise is still fundamentally flawed, LazyDT, in that the contours of a representative democracy require that individuals accept the possibility that the majority may compel them to act in ways that do not line up with their individual perspective. If, through the democratic process, a tax is levied that one does not agree with, and they then refuse to pay it, they ought be prepared to face the consequences of tax evasion. Otherwise, you are free to look elsewhere for citizenship, though I doubt the alternatives will be to your liking.
Maybe African Americans should've looked elsewhere in the 50s, when they still passed Jim Crowe bullshit all the time. Maybe the Hippies should've just left if they hated the Vietnam War so much. Maybe the religious right should just move if they don't like Gay Marriage so much.
I'm well aware that you have to put up with SOME decisions you don't like, but the idea that you just have to take whatever the majority says all the time is absolutely ridiculous. There comes a time when enough is enough, and you shouldn't just sit quiet and take it.
That brings up the interesting question then: Is it really worth bickering over whether or not extending background checks to online sales and fireworks shows (iirc) is an extremely intrusive invasion of privacy and a violation of our Second Amendment rights to bear firearms?
I can understand people being very much against the bans of sales of certain firearms or restrictions on loaded magazines, but I'm not convinced that background checks are so invasive that they nullify any potential benefits that they bring about.
I'd be a bit more understanding if the people so fervently against the legislation were consistent in their views, but many of them haven't been.
i think germany for example, the third biggest sport organisation here is shooting sport. Then again we have, i think, the hardest weapons laws in the world. While any citizen can own guns you must proof that you´re able to understand what you´re holding in your hands, proof that you´re able to lock it and pay some time and € for training and all those licenses till you can actually buy guns for your own.
And i see nothing wrong with this because the majority doesn´t feel that they´ve taken away their right to wear firearms. Because of that, i sometimes have a hard understanding why "everyone" should have free and uncontrolled acccess (2nd buyer) to guns and even kids (5-18.) years), like you in the US. Or why you feel you "need" to "guarantee" the "ability" to "fight" your own goverment. Many " marks i think but i don´t want to say anything wrong.
If "we" would have a dictator again we would get weapons from all around the world or the black market. Even the weapons we have right now would be sufficient to make a guerilla war happen. Imagine that in a land with the hardest weapon laws.
In my eyes the next dictator in the western world is more a product of the economy and their power to influence politics but not the "goverment" itself. It´s a creeping process. And guns won´t help you to fight it. Just a sharp mind, a community, your voice and foresight. Yes. When you as a citizen failed and it´s all too late, then it´s time for a call to arms.
And the pro self defense argument is based that a potential criminal fear his target/victim because he "could" bear firearms - we don´t speak about "defense skills" and "defense tools" yet.
The situations where one comes into "melee" range of an attack, any weapon we can get in the free market would be functionally adequate.
So after we got rid of the melee argument of self defense you can still want to build your defense of prevention on the fear that everyone could bear guns. I just wouldn´t like to live in such a society.
The thing that´s buffle me sometimes is the interpretation that with "fighting the goverment" means "we should wear firearm so they fear us". The "weapons" of today are different from 200 years ago.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: i think germany for example, the third biggest sport organisation here is shooting sport. Then again we have, i think, the hardest weapons laws in the world. While any citizen can own guns you must proof that you´re able to understand what you´re holding in your hands, proof that you´re able to lock it and pay some time and € for training and all those licenses till you can actually buy guns for your own.
And i see nothing wrong with this because the majority doesn´t feel that they´ve taken away their right to wear firearms. Because of that, i sometimes have a hard understanding why "everyone" should have free and uncontrolled acccess (2nd buyer) to guns and even kids (5-18.) years), like you in the US. Or why you feel you "need" to "guarantee" the "ability" to "fight" your own goverment. Many " marks i think but i don´t want to say anything wrong.
We don't all see it that way. Germany is not the United States. Different cultures.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: If "we" would have a dictator again we would get weapons from all around the world or the black market. Even the weapons we have right now would be sufficient to make a guerilla war happen. Imagine that in a land with the hardest weapon laws.
In my eyes the next dictator in the western world is more a product of the economy and their power to influence politics but not the "goverment" itself. It´s a creeping process. And guns won´t help you to fight it. Just a sharp mind, a community, your voice and foresight. Yes. When you as a citizen failed and it´s all too late, then it´s time for a call to arms.
Your voice absolutely IS a better tool for preventing tyranny, but it shouldn't be your only one. Look how well speaking out worked for the people in Tianenmen Square.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: And the pro self defense argument is based that a potential criminal fear his target/victim because he "could" bear firearms - we don´t speak about "defense skills" and "defense tools" yet.
The situations where one comes into "melee" range of an attack, any weapon we can get in the free market would be functionally adequate.
Melee range doesn't suddenly make guns worthless. Even if they knock you down, and are beating you, you can still draw your gun and fire. Its not like you really have to aim when they're on you. And yes, you might still lose, but its better than a guaranteed loss.
The weapons of today aren't THAT different. They're still just guns. And the government can't use the things that ARE different, because they're terribly ineffective at dealing with guerrilla forces. Tanks can't kick down your door at 2AM, and jets can't enforce a curfew.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: i think germany for example, the third biggest sport organisation here is shooting sport. Then again we have, i think, the hardest weapons laws in the world. While any citizen can own guns you must proof that you´re able to understand what you´re holding in your hands, proof that you´re able to lock it and pay some time and € for training and all those licenses till you can actually buy guns for your own.
And i see nothing wrong with this because the majority doesn´t feel that they´ve taken away their right to wear firearms. Because of that, i sometimes have a hard understanding why "everyone" should have free and uncontrolled acccess (2nd buyer) to guns and even kids (5-18.) years), like you in the US. Or why you feel you "need" to "guarantee" the "ability" to "fight" your own goverment. Many " marks i think but i don´t want to say anything wrong.
We don't all see it that way. Germany is not the United States. Different cultures.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: If "we" would have a dictator again we would get weapons from all around the world or the black market. Even the weapons we have right now would be sufficient to make a guerilla war happen. Imagine that in a land with the hardest weapon laws.
In my eyes the next dictator in the western world is more a product of the economy and their power to influence politics but not the "goverment" itself. It´s a creeping process. And guns won´t help you to fight it. Just a sharp mind, a community, your voice and foresight. Yes. When you as a citizen failed and it´s all too late, then it´s time for a call to arms.
Your voice absolutely IS a better tool for preventing tyranny, but it shouldn't be your only one. Look how well speaking out worked for the people in Tianenmen Square.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: And the pro self defense argument is based that a potential criminal fear his target/victim because he "could" bear firearms - we don´t speak about "defense skills" and "defense tools" yet.
The situations where one comes into "melee" range of an attack, any weapon we can get in the free market would be functionally adequate.
Melee range doesn't suddenly make guns worthless. Even if they knock you down, and are beating you, you can still draw your gun and fire. Its not like you really have to aim when they're on you. And yes, you might still lose, but its better than a guaranteed loss.
The weapons of today aren't THAT different. They're still just guns. And the government can't use the things that ARE different, because they're terribly ineffective at dealing with guerrilla forces. Tanks can't kick down your door at 2AM, and jets can't enforce a curfew.
Sure our scientist when it comes down to weapon controll pay a HUGE and i mean huge attention about every little thing you could imagine. That´s about "different cultures because" that´s also a part about our own science in this matter.
it´s like a full paragraph is explaining like an excuse that the data could be used "biased" and could be interpreted in anyway but the data is nontheless there.
The next thing though .. "Tianenmen Square" I mean you can´t compare this situations. And about the self defense part .. well i was in a martial arts club from our local police since i was 8 i´m now 30 so i won´t argue here.
And the weapon part is bolded and i don´t meaned gun weapons with weapons.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: i think germany for example, the third biggest sport organisation here is shooting sport. Then again we have, i think, the hardest weapons laws in the world. While any citizen can own guns you must proof that you´re able to understand what you´re holding in your hands, proof that you´re able to lock it and pay some time and € for training and all those licenses till you can actually buy guns for your own.
And i see nothing wrong with this because the majority doesn´t feel that they´ve taken away their right to wear firearms. Because of that, i sometimes have a hard understanding why "everyone" should have free and uncontrolled acccess (2nd buyer) to guns and even kids (5-18.) years), like you in the US. Or why you feel you "need" to "guarantee" the "ability" to "fight" your own goverment. Many " marks i think but i don´t want to say anything wrong.
We don't all see it that way. Germany is not the United States. Different cultures.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: If "we" would have a dictator again we would get weapons from all around the world or the black market. Even the weapons we have right now would be sufficient to make a guerilla war happen. Imagine that in a land with the hardest weapon laws.
In my eyes the next dictator in the western world is more a product of the economy and their power to influence politics but not the "goverment" itself. It´s a creeping process. And guns won´t help you to fight it. Just a sharp mind, a community, your voice and foresight. Yes. When you as a citizen failed and it´s all too late, then it´s time for a call to arms.
Your voice absolutely IS a better tool for preventing tyranny, but it shouldn't be your only one. Look how well speaking out worked for the people in Tianenmen Square.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: And the pro self defense argument is based that a potential criminal fear his target/victim because he "could" bear firearms - we don´t speak about "defense skills" and "defense tools" yet.
The situations where one comes into "melee" range of an attack, any weapon we can get in the free market would be functionally adequate.
Melee range doesn't suddenly make guns worthless. Even if they knock you down, and are beating you, you can still draw your gun and fire. Its not like you really have to aim when they're on you. And yes, you might still lose, but its better than a guaranteed loss.
The weapons of today aren't THAT different. They're still just guns. And the government can't use the things that ARE different, because they're terribly ineffective at dealing with guerrilla forces. Tanks can't kick down your door at 2AM, and jets can't enforce a curfew.
Sure our scientist when it comes down to weapon controll pay a HUGE and i mean huge attention about every little thing you could imagine. That´s about "different cultures because" that´s also a part about our own science in this matter.
it´s like a full paragraph is explaining like an excuse that the data coud be used "biased" and could be interpreted in anyway but the data is nontheless there.
The next thing though .. "Tianenmen Square" I mean you can´t compare this situations. And about the self defense part .. well i was in a martial arts club from our local police since i was 8 i´m now 30 so i won´t argue here.
And the weapon part is bolded and i don´t meaned gun weapons with weapons.
I'm not saying the US is now as bad as Tianenmen Square, I'm saying it could happen, I wouldn't want to be armed with nothing more than my voice in the event that things do get that bad.
Not everyone has done martial arts training since they were 8, nor can they be expected to. I'm 21, and I've been in a wheelchair all my life. No amount of martial arts training is going to help me defend myself, but a gun might.
EPT
