Gun Control

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

It would be civil war.

Would be a huge waste of life for nothing.

Paramilitary organisations that want to fight your government due to paranoia simply create the need to strip them from arms because they appear as mad people with potentialy dangerous (to society) plans.

What if a militia grows so strong and indoctrinated they feel they can start doing things like overriding what the public majority decided? Why if a Republican evangelical paramilitary organisation decides to burn books with evolution theory? What if a neonazi militia decides they are strong enough to start terror campaigns? What if a private militia decided to secede because they don't like a president?

Those militias are more likely to one day become a problem for a local democratically elected majority they don't like.

[belch]

Interesting theory. There are such militia that exist...but don't kid yourself that they only exist within the United States. In fact, I think you'd have to be a bit naive to truly believe that it is the legal possession of firearms that makes men dangerous.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Would be a huge waste of life for nothing.

'Don't Tread On Me'

It really depends on what is most important to you.

Paramilitary organisations that want to fight your government due to paranoia simply create the need to strip them from arms because they appear as mad people with potentialy dangerous (to society) plans.

We do have plenty of these, but they are fringe groups that have little influence outside their compound walls.

What if a militia grows so strong and indoctrinated they feel they can start doing things like overriding what the public majority decided?

A militia by definition is a direct representative of the majority, or are you talking about something less official than an American State Militia?

Why if a Republican evangelical paramilitary organisation decides to burn books with evolution theory?

Freedom of speech. As long as they obtained the books legally. Why the Republican bashing, don't tell me you think they are religious...

What if a neonazi militia decides they are strong enough to start terror campaigns?

We have a functional criminal justice system, and we have had this happen before.

What if a private militia decided to secede because they don't like a president?

A 'private militia' is an oxymoron. If you are talking about one of the paramilitary fringe groups, well, the government does little about them considering what they tend to cost it when they do go in.

Those militias are more likely to one day become a problem for a local democratically elected majority they don't like.

No, not really. But you are on the right track as to why guns shouldn't be taken from the general public. Why should we trust our government not to try to do the same to us?

[Figment]

A militia does not represent the majority. Where do you get that idea from? Resistance and revolutionary groups tend to have their own militias, like Hitler's SA, or most Afghan warlords, they are simply an organised armed group of civilians with their own agenda and interests over that of others. They do not represent the entire populace, like a standing army in a normal democracy would. And I say normal democracy on purpose here. The problem is that you lot fear democracy will fail in your country, but then you don't HAVE a democracy in the USA, but a largest minority rule. You set yourself up for a two-party system, neither of which represents your interests exactly. They are too big to force coalitions and too big to feel the need to compromise as they prefer to have monopoly on rulings each and that's setting your country up for indefinite stalemates and potential dictatorships if there ever was a permanent sway to one side.

Militias are usualy lead by local warlords. That includes the ones during your civilwar, which were usualy lead by local plantation owners, whether or not with military training. They tend to be very undisiciplined.

(Btw, with the book burning thing, I meant going into schools and burning the books they don't want their state's children to learn from, even though it would be the official state policy and a majority in the State would be in favour.)

Tbh if they'd grow big enough and lead by Tea Party types, I'd see them grow bold enough to start telling other people how to live. They think a democrat shouldn't run their State - and for some reason, like with the presidential elections - think the elections brought horrible things - what stops them from trying to seize power? Their supposed oath to protect the USA? These type of people often have the "if you disagree you are not a patriot" line of thinking. They are paranoid, distrusting and incapable of reason.

And plenty of them are in militias.

[belch]

Whether you agree with it or not, in the United States we currently have the right to ensure that, at the level of the populace, we can stand up our own militia thru the provisioning of our own arms, without the need for aid from any foreign, or domestic supplier. That a militia could be stood up so quickly might seem disconcerting to you...but if you fear the fact that like minded individuals might decide to do so with "bad intent", you may want to fear the inability to counter such a group even more so. Because, whether you like it or not, such groups exist. They arm themselves without your permission, nor the permission of their government.

The men that created the verbiage for the 2nd Ammendment to our Constitution were not stupid men. They realized that weapons technology would outgrow their document. They did not specifically limit the verbiage to say 'muskets', even though much larger, more destructive weapons existed at the time.

That any ammendment exists to the Constitution of the US at all, should tell you...legislation can be created that supercedes that early, and much contested, 2nd ammendment. Already, there are laws that prohibit the ownership of weapons that fire in a full automatic capacity. Specific categories of munitions, and their delivery systems, are not available to the average citizen. Several states have created and maintain laws very similar to the Clinton era 'Assault Weapons Ban'.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by belch

Whether you agree with it or not, in the United States we currently have the right to ensure that, at the level of the populace, we can stand up our own militia thru the provisioning of our own arms, without the need for aid from any foreign, or domestic supplier. That a militia could be stood up so quickly might seem disconcerting to you...but if you fear the fact that like minded individuals might decide to do so with "bad intent", you may want to fear the inability to counter such a group even more so. Because, whether you like it or not, such groups exist. They arm themselves without your permission, nor the permission of their government.

Please point out all of those existing in the EU right now. Let's see IRA "all Ireland for Ireland", marginalised, turned out to be more effective through democratic and diplomatic means than they ever were with bombings and assasinations of government officials and soldiers. ETA, fringe Basque independence group, marginalised. Both always limited to bombings because they could not stand up against the military might of the ones they wanted to fight.

Have there been other examples? No.

So no, we don't need to fear groups arming themselves if they're going to have a hard time getting access to weapons in the first place.

The men that created the verbiage for the 2nd Ammendment to our Constitution were not stupid men.

They also didn't agree one bit on anything.

They realized that weapons technology would outgrow their document. They did not specifically limit the verbiage to say 'muskets', even though much larger, more destructive weapons existed at the time.

They also expected large portions of it to become considered entirely obsolete in time.

That any ammendment exists to the Constitution of the US at all, should tell you...legislation can be created that supercedes that early, and much contested, 2nd ammendment.

Which means the 2nd ammendment too is not irrevocable.

Already, there are laws that prohibit the ownership of weapons that fire in a full automatic capacity. Specific categories of munitions, and their delivery systems, are not available to the average citizen. Several states have created and maintain laws very similar to the Clinton era 'Assault Weapons Ban'.

That's the least one can do. Unfortunately, if one can just cross the stateline and get one without a permit, who's stopping you from doing so?


As far as I can tell, traveling between different states and crossing the statelines in the USA is pretty simple without any passing through customs hassle. So unless you're consistent throughout the entire bordered zone, you're going to make bans in one area ineffective with respect to another.

And if, like Chicago did, you instate a ban on guns and don't actually go and actively find and take away the existing guns, you only create a skewed situation where some do due to a sort of grandfather right and others do not own weapons.

In both those scenarios you get the situation you people are afraid of, yes. Gun laws is something you have to do on a federal level.

Just like you can't change the flow of a river in one state and expect it to match up on the entry and exit points at the state border. Same for interstate roads: what's the point of building a road to a border, if it doesn't lead anywhere accross that border?

[belch]

Originally Posted by Figment

Please point out all of those existing in the EU right now. Let's see IRA "all Ireland for Ireland", marginalised, turned out to be more effective through democratic and diplomatic means than they ever were with bombings and assasinations of government officials and soldiers. ETA, fringe Basque independence group, marginalised. Both always limited to bombings because they could not stand up against the military might of the ones they wanted to fight.

Have there been other examples? No.

So no, we don't need to fear groups arming themselves if they're going to have a hard time getting access to weapons in the first place.

You may believe that the EU is free from radical/extremist militia, but you would be wrong. Just do a search of 'European extremist groups'. Now, I want you to contemplate out of that HUGE number of groups, what is the likelihood that any have procurred arms? Or even better, how many have procurred arms? Let's not stop at arms, like 'assault rifles'. What about improvising explosive devices? Or just the ability to manufacture explosives?

But wait, you mentioned bombings in a flippant manner...almost suggesting that compared to the firepower of any nations police and military, it is some token, ineffective weapon. You do realize that during my countries 10+ year war in the Middle East, the single most deadly weapon system that the enemy has employed is the improvised explosive device, responsible for well over 50% of US KIA's. You do realize that a suicide vest in a market place, a school, a loading point for public transportation, can create MANY more casualties than a shooter with an 'assault rifle', don't you? Because...it can.

They also didn't agree one bit on anything.

They also expected large portions of it to become considered entirely obsolete in time.

Obviously, they probably did agree on some things. However, you failed to address my statement, and instead are theorizing that they anticipated a change that you envision. In fact, the guarantee that nothing and noone could prevent such a change if necessary is the ammendment itself. Disagree all you want to, but I do not recommend bringing harsh words to a gun fight. And like it or not...those that oppress...be it locally or nationally, enforce their words with the threat of arms.

My personal opinion? I no longer believe in Santa Claus.

Which means the 2nd ammendment too is not irrevocable.

Absolutely. However, you are asking, as an outsider albeit with altruistic intent, that the American people have the same faith that you apparently do. How about I ask that you let the American people decide what is best for them?

That's the least one can do. Unfortunately, if one can just cross the stateline and get one without a permit, who's stopping you from doing so?


As far as I can tell, traveling between different states and crossing the statelines in the USA is pretty simple without any passing through customs hassle. So unless you're consistent throughout the entire bordered zone, you're going to make bans in one area ineffective with respect to another.

And if, like Chicago did, you instate a ban on guns and don't actually go and actively find and take away the existing guns, you only create a skewed situation where some do due to a sort of grandfather right and others do not own weapons.

In both those scenarios you get the situation you people are afraid of, yes. Gun laws is something you have to do on a federal level.

Just like you can't change the flow of a river in one state and expect it to match up on the entry and exit points at the state border. Same for interstate roads: what's the point of building a road to a border, if it doesn't lead anywhere accross that border?

Yes, because we are a single nation...with a physical size that precludes it. I don't recall passing any customs check points in between Baden-Wurttemberg and Bavaria/Bayern either.

Are you implying that no weapons illegally cross state or country borders in Europe...?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by belch

You may believe that the EU is free from radical/extremist militia, but you would be wrong. Just do a search of 'European extremist groups'. Now, I want you to contemplate out of that HUGE number of groups, what is the likelihood that any have procurred arms? Or even better, how many have procurred arms? Let's not stop at arms, like 'assault rifles'. What about improvising explosive devices? Or just the ability to manufacture explosives?

How big do you estimate those groups to be?

But wait, you mentioned bombings in a flippant manner...almost suggesting that compared to the firepower of any nations police and military, it is some token, ineffective weapon. You do realize that during my countries 10+ year war in the Middle East, the single most deadly weapon system that the enemy has employed is the improvised explosive device, responsible for well over 50% of US KIA's. You do realize that a suicide vest in a market place, a school, a loading point for public transportation, can create MANY more casualties than a shooter with an 'assault rifle', don't you? Because...it can.

Yes, I've however, never seen a war won through bombings, nor political campaign achieved through bombings.

Obviously, they probably did agree on some things. However, you failed to address my statement, and instead are theorizing that they anticipated a change that you envision.

No, I'm saying they anticipated times would change. They would not know which changes. They simply made the law in the context of their time.

Absolutely. However, you are asking, as an outsider albeit with altruistic intent, that the American people have the same faith that you apparently do. How about I ask that you let the American people decide what is best for them?

They should, but if in a democracy the majority says "no" to arms, how about you accept that instead of saying "over my dead body"?

Yes, because we are a single nation...with a physical size that precludes it. I don't recall passing any customs check points in between Baden-Wurttemberg and Bavaria/Bayern either.

Are you implying that no weapons illegally cross state or country borders in Europe...?

The current majority of illegal weapons come from the former Yugoslavian states and Albania ('90s civil war), some are stolen from police depots and some are othewise illegaly transported in. They don't come in great numbers however. The borders of the EU are pretty hard to get in, though not impenetrable, yet it's not called "Fortress Europe" for no reason.

See, that's about it. The weapons have to pass through customs somewhere and then be transported over thousands of miles, or need to be shipped to Italy (most likely route). We have more and more advanced scanning devices in the harbours and at customs, so chances are little gets in and even less in the future. Since own sources are fairly small, few arms spread.

[Crator]

FYI, there's been a lot of talk lately of allowing teachers to carry a concealed weapon to school. There's even a school in Texas that has been doing this for a couple years now.

Texas Town Allows Teachers to Carry Concealed Guns

[belch]

Originally Posted by Figment

How big do you estimate those groups to be?

How big? Well, not to intentionally answer a question with a question, but in this case I cannot resist. How big does a group need to be to accomplish their aims or goals? What if there goal is to murder school aged children in Connecticut...or Norway...or Russia...?

Yes, I've however, never seen a war won through bombings, nor political campaign achieved through bombings.

You've never seen a war won by only one weapon system ever, I would imagine. If, however, you believe the US is leaving the Middle Eastern ventures we started 10+ years ago because the enemy has been vanquished...you are sorely mistaken. And further, if you don't think that those casualty reports, those grieving families and their friends, have had no influence on the US's sudden desire for a way out...then, I also have a bridge to sell you.

No, I'm saying they anticipated times would change. They would not know which changes. They simply made the law in the context of their time.

You're missing the point. The guarantee that the people can safeguard themselves against tyranny...even from the very government that the drafters of the amendment sought to establish and refine. They acknowledged that even their own ideas may be used against the very citizenry of the Republic which they hoped to create...and voted in one safeguard against that.

They should, but if in a democracy the majority says "no" to arms, how about you accept that instead of saying "over my dead body"?

Where did I say "over my dead body"? I am an American. I get my vote on how my country is run. While I appreciate your concerns and opinions, don't mistake my open mindedness and willingness to debate this with you, to be a plea that you figure this out for me. I think I am in a much better position to understand how the laws that exist, as well as possible changes, will affect me. But thanks for the consideration.

The current majority of illegal weapons come from the former Yugoslavian states and Albania ('90s civil war), some are stolen from police depots and some are othewise illegaly transported in. They don't come in great numbers however. The borders of the EU are pretty hard to get in, though not impenetrable, yet it's not called "Fortress Europe" for no reason.

Yes, there are arms coming from the former Yugoslavian states....and stolen from police stations...

That is just the tip of the iceburg. You didn't mention any of the rest of the former 'Pact nations'...and you would be crazy if you didn't believe that a rather substantial amount of weapons are dealt thru "businessmen" from many of them. I'm not even talking about just small arms. But, I'm I'm not trying to poke holes in "Fortress Europa"s armor. Just remember...the Maginot Line. Many times have people felt confident that they were invulnerable, only to find something else...

See, that's about it. The weapons have to pass through customs somewhere and then be transported over thousands of miles, or need to be shipped to Italy (most likely route). We have more and more advanced scanning devices in the harbours and at customs, so chances are little gets in and even less in the future. Since own sources are fairly small, few arms spread.

Yeah, that's odd. I mean, you guys don't make guns in Europe...right? (SIG, Glock, Enfield, Steyr, Fabrique Nationale, Izhmash, Tula, Berretta, Mossberg...)

And there is just no way that anyone could commit a terrible crime of mass murder with a weapon with all of that high tech scanning, and systems, and...

only in America...oh wait...<<link alert!!>>

[belch]

Originally Posted by Crator

FYI, there's been a lot of talk lately of allowing teachers to carry a concealed weapon to school. There's even a school in Texas that has been doing this for a couple years now.

Texas Town Allows Teachers to Carry Concealed Guns

Absolutely. Let's stop making our schools a soft target.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

A militia does not represent the majority. Where do you get that idea from? Resistance and revolutionary groups tend to have their own militias, like Hitler's SA, or most Afghan warlords, they are simply an organised armed group of civilians with their own agenda and interests over that of others.

Okay, I read this far and stopped. We are talking about two different things. You are talking about self legitimized paramilitary groups which is not what a militia is here. Here, a militia is a legal entity sanctioned by one of the States in the Union. It is effectively that state's military.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Okay, I read this far and stopped. We are talking about two different things. You are talking about self legitimized paramilitary groups which is not what a militia is here. Here, a militia is a legal entity sanctioned by one of the States in the Union. It is effectively that state's military.

Only ideally, in practice people reserve the right to form their own militias that have no direct ties with the State. That's the private militias you have many examples of. Those have their own agenda and are effectively the only militias you have left. There's no such thing as state militias anymore and there haven't been any for over a century afaik.


iirc, the law on militias states there need to be x officers (from the State) per y people and in principle they answer to the president. If they don't, they become illegal and other state militias can be called upon to take them out.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by belch

How big? Well, not to intentionally answer a question with a question, but in this case I cannot resist. How big does a group need to be to accomplish their aims or goals? What if there goal is to murder school aged children in Connecticut...or Norway...or Russia...?

Not a big group to conduct some killings. That's not the point I was making. You said you feared oppression by a group with guns over a group without guns. How big a group with guns do you think is needed to gain control oppress millions of other people who have a national army of approximately 1/200?

I mean, the RAF (not the Royal Air Force) in Germany consisted of a few people. They were known as a terrorist group, but in the end would never have been able to achieve their ultimate goals.

The things you fear most is one of these groups taking control, but that's simply very unlikely if the fast majority disagrees with their principles. They would never get the army behind them. And because the army exists from people with all kinds of political backgrounds as it should in a democracy, like yours, you wouldn't see an army repress its own people.

That only happens if the army is of one group, repressive of its own troops and not bound by law. Typically one only needs to fear the generals that directly control their own armies and where the army's loyalty is not to the state, but that general. You often heard Malorn mention the Roman Republic as a model, but it's that model that allowed armies to be more loyal to a consul or general (they paid their wages and bonded during campaigns), than to the senate of Rome.

One should not expect no criminal or madman to ever acquire weapons. That's why one has (international) intelligence agencies: to try and track them down before they strike.

You've never seen a war won by only one weapon system ever, I would imagine.

WWII Japan. Though technically a combination of a bomber (delivery system) and an atomic bomb, so two weapon systems.

Which is why one doesn't want nukes to spread (non-proliferation treaty) either. Would you wish people to have their own nukes, just because your government has one?

If you think them responsible enough to handle them, then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Or is falling into the wrong hands suddenly a different argument?

It's the same argument, different scale.

If, however, you believe the US is leaving the Middle Eastern ventures we started 10+ years ago because the enemy has been vanquished...you are sorely mistaken. And further, if you don't think that those casualty reports, those grieving families and their friends, have had no influence on the US's sudden desire for a way out...then, I also have a bridge to sell you.

Not saying that, but then your middle east strategy was crap. Who disbands the national army of a defeated nation instead of taking it over to ensure the men don't go awol, start rebel groups under new warlords and the munitions depots etc remain safely under governmental control?

The Iraqi national guard literally offered their allegiance to the US and offered to keep all weapon depots guarded and safe. The next day Bush and Cheney ordered the army disbanded because it contained loyalists to Saddam. They thought disbanding it and start a new army from scratch would be better than slowly weeding out the bad seeds. Putting the tens of thousands of predominantly Sunni men (that had to feed their families) out of a stable source of income. Humiliating their part of the population and creating anger, frustration and despair in one move.

That's the single most devastating thing the USA did to Iraq and the direct cause of the strength of the Iraqi insurgency.

Immediately chaos ensued, depots were plundered, many of which by the soldiers themselves, but also by other groups that saw an opportunity to create their own militias, like Al Sadr's.

It appears US supreme command (probably the administration in particular) didn't read Sun Tzu. Some quotes:

“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.”

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. If you distrust them, don't make them go into hiding. In the standing Iraqi army under new leadership, these elements would have been a lot easier to control.

“Convince your enemy that he will gain very little by attacking you; this will diminish his enthusiasm”. If you retreat based on casualties or bomb threat, that'll just be used against you in next campaigns.

“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” and "There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." Gee, wonder why. Costly toll maybe?

You're missing the point. The guarantee that the people can safeguard themselves against tyranny...even from the very government that the drafters of the amendment sought to establish and refine. They acknowledged that even their own ideas may be used against the very citizenry of the Republic which they hoped to create...and voted in one safeguard against that.

I know what you mean, but it's not a safeguard from my perspective. In fact, from my perspective it's an increased risk that can lead to totalitarian regimes by minority groups. Look at how the Soviet Union came to be: miners were armed by the Tsar to fight for him, but later convinced by the bolsjeviks to revolt. It resulted in lengthy civil war and a totalitarian regime, as the old regime and any other opposition was wiped out by force and execution.

Something similar happened with Mao. The communist partizans posed great difficulties after the war, particularly in the east. French resistance groups each had their own allegiance and political doctrines. Without a strong army presence, it would have been possible for the communist resistance groups to try a revolution. In fact, in many countries back then the communist groups had already organised for revolution, they just didn't have the weapons to do it.

I understand you think one group can contain the other, but typically if two or more groups fight, one becomes victor and the other is removed anyway. It is better to offer them a political platform and allow new parties to have their say through existing governing bodies. Allowing them to participate and the presence of Labour parties has kept the communist parties in western Europe in check too. Marx' revolution never came to be in the nations he thought most prone to them, because those countries took steps towards more benevolent democracies with more freedoms for the people.

So from my perspective, the best safeguard is a way to democratically depose of a government and ensure no single group can come to power on their own. Keep everyone happy and there's little reason for armed revolt. And that's the one thing your founding fathers in all their wisdom were unable to do: create a true democracy. You've got a two party system that doesn't require compromise from the other side. Worse, those two parties are the largest minority opinions, so you have a minority rule (if both senate, parliament and therefore president is of one party, nobody can stop them from enacting laws that only that party likes) by giving them the majority vote out of fear of a majority rule.

In coalitions (especially ones that may change the next elections), you have to listen to opposition and coalition partners as you have to cooperate, if not now then probably in the future. That ensures minority groups are heard and protected, but the majority gets their way.

That's just a ridiculous notion. You could have settled with a veto for say a 40% opposition as well.

Where did I say "over my dead body"?

Not you, but plenty of others in this thread.

I am an American. I get my vote on how my country is run. While I appreciate your concerns and opinions, don't mistake my open mindedness and willingness to debate this with you, to be a plea that you figure this out for me. I think I am in a much better position to understand how the laws that exist, as well as possible changes, will affect me. But thanks for the consideration.

I never expected you to allow me to determine your laws. As you say, I don't vote on them. However, in a debate, the goal is to try and convince your opposition or at least understand one another better. Not?

Yes, there are arms coming from the former Yugoslavian states....and stolen from police stations...

That is just the tip of the iceburg. You didn't mention any of the rest of the former 'Pact nations'...and you would be crazy if you didn't believe that a rather substantial amount of weapons are dealt thru "businessmen" from many of them. I'm not even talking about just small arms. But, I'm I'm not trying to poke holes in "Fortress Europa"s armor. Just remember...the Maginot Line. Many times have people felt confident that they were invulnerable, only to find something else...

Most those weapons from the Warschau Pakt countries have found their way to Africa and the middle east and put in the hands of civilian rebels and warlords.

Let's see what happened next...

Ah yes... Huge instability, genocides, dictatorship after dictatorship, political oppression and more of that fun stuff. You think arming all the African villages would help against night attacks by larger, organised rebel groups? Or do you reckon it'd just create an extra source of conflict and escalation between tribes and a larger source of weapons for rebel groups taking advantage?


Having weapons readily available only strengthens a larger attacker when they manage to defeat you. I've heard some pro-gun ignorants here state that Luxembourg fell to nazi Germany because its citizens didn't have weapons. They never seem to consider the fact that 300.000 people (only half of which would be male and even less able bodied men) armed with guns and no discipline would have had to face off with millions of better armed, better trained, more disciplined, more battle hardened enemy soldiers.

These people would also point that Switzerland (more weapons per person than Luxembourg) didn't fall to the Germans. They forgot to mention it's a land with high mountain ranges, narrow passes and roads, high altitude fighting, a position of neutrality and small army (no direct threat), secret bank accounts for a lot of the nazi regime, was prepared to work with Germany in trade and resources and most importantly, wasn't of strategic important to tackle France. If Germany had wanted to take Switzerland, they would probably have done so once the UK was out of the war. And probably with limited resistance because Switzerland would be surrounded and isolated on all sides (fascist Italy, nazi Germany-Austria, Vichy-France).

The Maginot line was incomplete (didn't go all the way to the sea) and assumed the neutrality of our country to be respected. There were some British guarding the northern end, but not that many. The Maginot line itself was never tested really.

Yeah, that's odd. I mean, you guys don't make guns in Europe...right? (SIG, Glock, Enfield, Steyr, Fabrique Nationale, Izhmash, Tula, Berretta, Mossberg...)

Most of which are not privately owned nor meant for the domestic market. Unlike the weapons produced in America. you forgot to mention the whole marketing model difference? Oh dear.

And there is just no way that anyone could commit a terrible crime of mass murder with a weapon with all of that high tech scanning, and systems, and...

only in America...oh wait...<<link alert!!>>

You may want to note that Breivik is responsible for the equivalent of years of Norwegian murders in general, whereas Newtown isn't even noticable in your yearly murder rates.


If you look at the frequency of these murder sprees and their effectiveness, you'll note that in Europe as a whole, with a larger population, there are far less and the murders are far less effective and typically less in victim tally than in the USA (Breivik being an exception, mostly because of being on an island with no escape and lacking police response (they waited a long time and even went to the wrong island...)).

Fact is, that in the entirety of Europe, any violent murder is uncommon and murder sprees really rare and far and wide between. If you compare to the USA, you have several of these events a year. You can't deny that your record is simply worse at doing something about madmen. And that's with a much higher firearms possession rate for "defensive purposes". If anything, if your theory would be correct, there'd be fewer attacks or more attacks thwarted by gun carriers.

In reality, your domestic conflicts escalate sooner and result in a much higher death toll on a few year basis, than the entire war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war

2001-present: 40K casualties.



Assuming an average of 8000 pistol and 3000 other gun deaths a year, you've had around 12x11.000 ~ triple the Iraq/Afghan war casualties, domestically.


Even if you look at the suicide ratio (60ish%?), that suicide by gun ratio is relatively higher in countries with gun control (higher percentage of suicides than homicides), than those without where a firearm is relatively much more often used for homicide.


Please don't tell me that's supposed to make me feel saver. You are your own worst enemy. :/ And it's not the government that does the killing either. They just lock you all up for being violent maniacs.

[Figment]

How is it that on the same continent, Chile has a 0.06 ratio and Brazil a 19.01 firearm related death ratio?


Even though Chile has very hard to check borders with Argentina (5.65), Peru (1.87) and Bolivia (between 10 and 30)?



Just... think about it.