I'm fucking exhausted, flying 11 hours (4 flights) after a 4 hours night, so I'm gonna try to be a bit shorter.
True, but it won't make guns any easier to get a hold of if they are banned completely. If anything, in the US, any type of prohibition has made it easier to obtain that prohibited item, marijuana for example being easier for kids to get than cigarettes and alcohol because excluding dispensaries all of marijuana transactions are in the black market.
I see where you are coming to, and to an extend, I understand. The thing your arguments of this fashion don't think to grasp, is that in the long term it can only be beneficial, europe is just as good as an example (since we like to compare USA and EU in these debates). And a few centuries ago, we were certainly on the same level in terms of guns/powder/whatever.
The thing I don't get is why it sounds normal to say "well if we remove guns, it's gonna make people want them even more". So, the answer would be "ok let's do nothing about it ?"
Still banning is not an option, one of the most important reasons for the second amendment is for the people to assemble a militia, for national security reasons, to protect from foreign invaders and to give the people a fighting hand in the case a revolution is needed in times of tyranny.
I didn't know it was written like this in the constitution but, being myself from THE country of Revolution and Humans Rights, I find it scary that this counts as a pro argument. My country's history also shows a Revolution can be made without everyone being a soldier in essence. When they did the revolt in France, to kick the king out, they didn't have weapons, they found them, used them, whatever. Now I know the example is lame in many aspects, for it's 400 years old and shows nothing accurate enough for an argument, but it also shows it's not necessary. I don't see it being something positive in the balance.
You may disagree with that all you want, but when you have police brutally murdering innocent people, and even people who are guilty of a crime but pose no threat to the officer(s), when swat teams raid people's houses on a daily basis and shoot without hesitation, killing pets, and the residence only to find that they got the wrong house or the drug bust they were making was only enough drugs for personal use and usually just a slap on a wrist just proves that we the people of THIS country do need protection from our government.
I will have to try to find a source on it but last time I heard, you have more of a chance getting randomly killed by a police officer than getting killed in a car accident, struck by lightning, a mass shooter or shot by a thug in any sort of robbery combined. That I can believe to, I have seen too many cops in person pull guns on people including my own parents without any probable cause to do so.
There are enough videos on youtube of people being punched and assaulted, even having suffered injury and damage to themselves and possessions by police officers for filming them in public and not leaving when told to do so, even though they do not charge them because they can't due to the fact there is no law they broke. Same goes for those who protest against government that are peaceful and are not impeding the flow of society around them, not disturbing anyone. UC Davis pepper spray incident anyone. Some of the events I have listed are but mere few of the constant never ending events of tyranny in our own government, not counting the violent crimes that happen by citizens.
I'm a bit confused at the beginning. First the Police is a threat to citizen, then citizens need protection from the government. Or are you saying US gun laws is how the government protects you ? (I'm using no sarcasm nor doing any point here, I genuinely didn't get the argument there since read two opposite arguments in the same sentence from my probably biased understanding of it)
So what you are saying is that people should have guns to protect from the Police now ? I'm a bit confused really. If that's true, then you have a big other problems there. From what I read from you and americans is that SWAT is not really the good example, I think I know what video you are referring to.
By the way, just to give an empirical example which has little value, but just as a "pause for thoughts", that's one the devise of the french GIGN, which has an objectively record next to clean (good enough for them to teach the other elite teams in their own specific field and be chosen as main instruction resource for the ICAO aka International Civil Aviation Organization) : "Guns last".
Yes we need to protect ourselves as a whole, the risk that there might some random guy every now and then will kill innocent people with a gun is far outweighed by the ability to protect oneself.
If I wanted to be a dick, I would say "yeah sure, that's why killing 20 kids at school is almost common in the US".
Criminal deaths will be left unaffected by any gun control, as we are talking about people with no criminal history purchasing guns legally. Atomic weapons while being a good analog, does not translate well as atomic weaponry not only immediately effects the targets, but takes immediate collateral of innocents in the vicinity and scatters fallout throughout the whole world, it is a loose loose situation for everyone. Also instead of some countries trying to ban nuclear weapons to various countries, create the environment where they are not needed. Correct diplomacy with enemy nations can settle relations enough where the stockpiles can be depleted in a safe manner.
You missed my point with the nuclear example and over-thought it. I wasn't going for a full analogy, since they are totally different examples, since using one is foreseen as "starting the end of the world". Remove politics from it, just talk numbers, I was just using it as an analogy in terms of number of people killed to make the point more obvious.
The same cannot be said with guns though. Realistically, as long as cops military and thugs have guns, law abiding citizens deserve the right to play on an equal playing ground in the name pf self defense. Even if guns were completely banned an no longer manufactured here, other countries that manufacture guns will allow for the import of guns into the country arming them to gangs. The thought of only having criminals, police and military with guns and everyone else shit out of luck is pretty scary, not matter what country you live in.
So if militaries and cops have guns, then I should have one ? I don't see the point here. And absolutely true about smuggling weapons inside a country. That doesn't make a point though to me.
You should come to France, where only the Police, the Gendarmerie (military - based police), the Military, and criminals have guns. Live then for 20 years, and tell me how many times you saw a gun out of its holster.
No one every said making sure that everyone has a gun. However, as frequent are stories of cops assaulting, injuring and killing people there are actually more stories of people successively defending themselves in both robberies, and in home invasions. Quite a few of these incidents are children successfully thwarting invaders in their homes because they were properly trained on how to use and respect guns. With robberies and home invasions, you have absolutely no clue if the robber will let you live, more increasingly they kill anyone they see so they don't have any eye witnesses to identify them, most of them get away as a result.
I would (genuinely) want statistics about this vs the same in europe before I could comment about it because I have no idea. All I want to say is that in my country at least, just hearing "A woman was killed at home by someone robbing her apartment" is pretty, pretty rare. I, in all honestly, doubt multiplying guns lowers the odds of having a gunfight at home at night.
Of course pulling a gun on someone who was attacking you that had no intention of hurting you could escalate to something more drastic. I have heard that argument before that pulling a gun on a robber or shooter could make things worse, but like I said earlier, if you had a gun on you and you were in that situation, you have no clue if said criminal will let you live, are you going to take that chance that they have no intention on killing you? No, you don't, and while it may end in a death, that would be a risk I would be willing to make if it meant I could save my own ass indefinitely by my accord and not someone else's and even possibly bring that criminal to justice one way or another.
I absolutely agree. Starting from the initial condition "someone is entering my house at night", no one will argue about the fact he would prefer having a gun in his hand. I would.
BUT the thing is that in the US, probably every single night intruder ever has a gun anyway, from the first place. It's not the case here. No matter how people would say "bad people get weapons anyway", it's not "that" easy to get one either.
Point is that maybe you just create your fear of guns just by letting guns be so numerous in the first place.
The assumption that if everyone had a gun arguments would escalate into shootouts is absolutely absurd. In states where open carry is religiously practiced, 99.9% of fights never go beyond fists. Law abiding citizens only carry guns on them to level the playing field only when they have to. You make the assumption that just because someone owns a gun, means they are willing to risk killing someone just because of a depute. This almost never true.
I don't think it's that absurd, and you made it like I said it was something almost mandatory to happen. I don't say every single one goes to fight with his guns. But I'm pretty sure the initial reaction of many americans when someone knocks drunk at his/her door is to get his/her weapon in hands, "just in case". I don't say most of them do, but it just needs your 0.1 (or 0.001 whatever)% to be the one killing someone, and hop, another one on the wikipedia page about guns in the USA (mind you, this one is pretty extensive)
Like I said before, prohibition has actually made those band items easier to get a hold of. If you really wanted to get a gun in your country, its easier than you think, just because at this very moment you don't know the networks to go through, does not mean it isn't an easy thing to do.
I'd like you to try that here, without being quickly arrested by someone calling the cops, and trust me they would come in the next 5mn once someone called them. You don't find weapons so easily, I'm sorry. If you're already in the market for buying one so easily, you're not the "sample random guy" you're starting the demonstration with in the first place.
Also just because a murderer doesn't have a gun doesn't mean that it is any more difficult to take out as many people, IEDs in the middle east, well trained psychos with knives in China injure and kill almost as many people as the average US shooting. A few months practice with a homemade bow and arrow, martial arts, knives can all do equal damage if you know what you are doing.
we're not talking professionals here. A kung fu master can kill you with his fingers if he wants (it's not just hollywood).
We're talking psychos who have access to an instant and easy way to score, aka "I just shot 27 people at a school and another one is doing the same next year, probably". Not someone practicing for months.
Again, just to emphasize again the thing, we're talking machinery that is hand-held and that can kill someone in the next second by pressing a detent, several times in a row.
See another assumption being made is that guns are easier than any other weapon to operate. Honestly though, for most that have never shot a gun before, you are more likely to kill more people in a given amount of time with a knife than you are with a .45 handgun.
True if you're talking someone who would touch his gun for the first time. I hardly think anyone who did a mass murder didn't train a little beforehand... or was raised in a country where it's very casual to do so once in a while once daddy buys you yours.
EDIT : After some reflexion, I don't think it's that true though. Once loaded, I think you're pretty dumb if you don't know how to use the thing to at least unload your first mag. Also, you don't need to be that close (although shooting from a distance is probably unlikely to happen with the excitement and adrenaline) to kill, while with a knife (to take your example) you need to be in close range, increasing way much your changes to be taken down by "a random professor"
The fact that there are less violent crimes in France has nothing to do with availability of guns. The social construct over there is not do decomposed over the years were it has bred a mentally stable demographic. One thing that was brought up some time ago was how Sweden generally has softer gun control laws than the US, however there is less violent crime per capita, again overall violence and availability of guns never correlates. Was has correlated though is how in the US, when stricter gun laws are imposed, violent crime goes up, when the laws are reverse many years later, violence goes down. This actually happened with Washington DC, where murder rates went up 300% the year they completely banned gun ownership to all citizens. This ban was in the 70s, a few years ago they reversed this law and violent crimes have been slowly going down back to what they were before the ban. This has happened to more or less extremes everywhere else stricter laws have been put into place.
I absolutely agree with all that, with a twist though : if crime raises by 300% in your example, I think it's just a short term effect. I honestly believe in the long term it can only be positive. I see your point in the fact that if there are more gun deaths it's because of high crime rate anyway.
I don't necessarily thing that media coverage inspires others to copy
I'm really really sure it does. I recall one of the last mass murders being inspiring by the Columbine one because it's just so emblematic, said by the killer himself; I can't testify it though, but I didn't invent the argument myself.
Also I don't know what you have with your amendments. We don't train ourselves into being our government arch enemy even though we, as good frenchies, like to complain about it. I'm okay to get the argument of "but USA is a superpower who likes to control everyone else, just like any superpower in history", since it would make sense, at least.
Also, I don't know how was exactly made your picture John, but if you made it out of sources of corresponding qualities, then I have hard time believing this doesn't make a point. INDEED you cannot compare countries so easily, different background, etc etc... but come on, it had to be like this ? Could it be just bad luck or is USA so special ? Could the fact it's twice as far in both direction as the furthest one of the other countries, be just bias ? It's not a un-counterable demo in itself, but how predictible was that, doesn't it just show something ?
The worst, is that nothing is gonna change. And there will be another one to add on one of those lists :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_secondary_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_post-secondary_schools
PS : almost skipped a beat, thought I lost that before I hit "submit reply"
