Gun Control

[Jogre]

Fact is guns are used for defense. We outlaw those then what? Knives are next. We really going to outlaw the right to self preservation because of a nutcase every few years? You can't outlaw crazy. If it's not guns then it trucks of peace.

Thing is, lots of countries don't really have regular situations where you'd need a gun to defend yourself. The idea of someone carrying a gun walking in to your house and the you can only fight back using a gun is mostly either in poor/desperate countries or in the US.

Gun Culture is self-perpetuating. Because everyone owns a gun, it becomes less absurd to imagine a situation in which you'd need a gun to defend yourself, and because it becomes less absurd to imagine a situation where you'd need a gun to defend yourself, everyone owns a gun. The cycle needs to be broken somewhere.

Also, we're not talking about outlawing anything, we're talking about improving regulations on it to make sure the crazies don't get them.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Because everyone owns a gun

Most Americans do not own guns, and ownership has been on a steady decline for 40 years. What backwoods shitholes do you all live in where you're getting in gun fights? Please work on your marksmanship so we can speed up natural selection.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That's a good one. I just randomly stumbled here and this was the first thing to catch my eye (thanks to the red batch of text) and I actually laughed out loud.

Is that the conservative US in a nutshell regarding this matter? Which way would you prefer to die most? Stabbed or shot? Think about it.

You make fun of it, but think about if the Las Vegas shooter threw knives out of the window!

 

[SuAside]

(sorry for the rambling to come)

Guns are used for offence.

First and foremost, civilian firearms are a sporting and recreational tool. After that, they're a defensive tool. After that, they are an offensive tool. There's enough statistics to prove this, but that's hardly relevant in the discussion.
It should also be noted that the vast majority of "murders" in western statistics are suicides. Guns simply provide an easy and effective tool to painlessly end your life with, but their absence doesn't suddenly make you want to live longer... Nor does the absence of guns lower violent crime.

What you need to realize in a gun control debate, is where the "no concessions" pro-gun stance comes from. Historically, gun laws have only ever become stricter in 99.9% of the cases. Loosening of gun laws is extremely uncommon. The consensus based anti-gun stance is often to slowly restrict, but in the end, over time, allow nothing to remain.
In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, I totally agree the slidefire or bumpfire stocks are of no value to a sportshooter at all, but I will never defend the tightening of gun laws to ban it simply because it's of no use. After banning slidefire stocks, they'll move on to banning binary triggers (triggers which instead of firing once when pulled, fire when pulled AND when released). Binary triggers are also entirely retarded and a result of the wording of current american guns laws & ATF regulation, but again, I will not support their ban.

To my knowledge, this is the first time a slidefire stock has been used for any major incident. And now we need to ban them because they are evil.
Sorry, but no. Not unless the american gun owners get something in return. Like concealed carry reciprocity act (federal legislation allowing people with concealed carry permits to carry outside their own state) or the hearing protection act (which allows easier usage of suppressors). Clinton obviously pushed her stupidity by tweeting "imagine if he had used a suppressor" after the shooting in the hope of killing the proposed hearing protection act, but do you realize how LOUD the guns are which he used? Suppressed the guns in question would have produced over 120 dB. It's a non-issue.
Finland has "over the counter" unregistered suppressors for forever. Ask a Finn how often they are used to ninja hollywood assassinations.

Either way, pro-gun tends to promote self-reliance, responsibilization and punishing of the guilty instead of wholesale banning things because you don't like them. Anti-gun exclusively allows the state to have a monopoly on violence. But the state is simply now always there to protect you, and how could you believe it ever could be?

Let me illustrate with an example. An opinion piece from The Guardian was recently published in a local newspaper here which quite aptly shows our difference in reasoning:
The piece talked about a recent incident in some american city. A bullet shattered a window of a house (or apartment) and the father of the family living there frantically called 911 and requested an escort out of his house. He wanted to take his wife and newborn to a hotel in the hopes of being safer there. Although dispatch kept telling him for over 30 minutes that the cops were almost there, they didn't show up.
Now, the opinion piece wanted to show how guns are evil and that they should be banned to prevent other families from enduring this hardship. The writer seems absolutely oblivious of the fact that most pro-gun people would react with "well, if the father had a gun, at least he'd be able to attempt to protect his family if some hoodlums tried to break into his house after shooting it up, because the cops clearly aren't showing up on time to save anyone". The very case which he uses to show how dangerous guns are can be reversed to show a need for guns to be used defensively.

Here in Europe (except CZ), concealed carry is almost entirely restricted to the super rich and/or the powerful (politicians, judges,...). Why do these people have more rights to defend themselves than others? If we are all equal, why is my life less important? Why am I less trustworthy?
Carrying weapons used to be a right in many of the European countries. Think of the British Bill of Rights. Hell, in my home country, carry of firearms was common place up until the second world war. Yet, there were no big shootings, no noteworthy incidents.
Now, we have lost our rights, and will never regain them. As Jesse Hughes said after finding out multiple off duty cops died at the Bataclan massacre: we don't even allow off duty cops to carry anymore, and we may very well have fared better if we had. Jesse now travels armed everywhere where he legally can. And I can't say I blame him. I believe it is his natural right to protect himself by the best means he has at his disposal.
Hell, here in Belgium we can't even carry utility knives, pepper spray or tasers.

There is a quote that sums it up quite nicely: A man is asked why he conceal carries a firearm on his person. The man answers: "Because I can't carry a police officer in my pocket".

Ideally, you wouldn't need to carry any weapon, but until we can guarantee everyone's safety, it may be the only way to allow responsibly citizens to defend themselves.

 

[Crni Vuk]

There are no defensive tools, as every weapon is offensive by its very nature. Every offensive weapon can be used in defense as well, but their primary use is as an offensive object.
That's why every nation will go crazy even if 'defensive' weapons are put near their borders, and that for a very logic reason. Everyone knows, there is no defensive weapon.

I know you love guns Sua, and I wouldn't want to take yours away. But please ... you know that weapons like guns are not 'defensive tools' first, that's how the majority today in civiliced western nations might see them, but that's not their design. A revolver, rifle or what ever, is ALWAYS designed with the intention to be offensive first, there is no 'defensive' function on a rifle or hand gun.

 

[Kohno]

You make fun of it, but think about if the Las Vegas shooter threw knives out of the window!

It crossed my mind. He could've probably killed people with root vegetables too. A large raw turnip thrown from that height and hitting someone to the temple...

Finland has "over the counter" unregistered suppressors for forever. Ask a Finn how often they are used to ninja hollywood assassinations.

I can't off hand remember silencers ever being mentioned in homicie news. Obtaining a llicense for a gun here is behind quite a bureaucracy maze, though.

The use and affection for guns is a cultural thing anyway.

Like:

There is a quote that sums it up quite nicely: A man is asked why he conceal carries a firearm on his person. The man answers: "Because I can't carry a police officer in my pocket".

Ideally, you wouldn't need to carry any weapon, but until we can guarantee everyone's safety, it may be the only way to allow responsibly citizens to defend themselves.

The very idea behind that phrase is alien to me. That it is OK for things to be so dangerous that one actually feels the need to carry a weapon in public in case that he might need to shoot someone for self defence, and it not being an overreaction.

I'm not going to tell you how to run your country, it's none of my business, but looking at things all the way from here, there's something weird going on with all this gun legislation and gun culture thing.

 

[Walpknut]

I live in a country that has been on a civil war for 50 years and I have had to go to some really ghetto ass parts of the capital on a regular basis and I never felt the compulsion to get a gun to pew pew whoever looked at me wrong. And you can get guns fairly easily here, my dad used to own a Gun and he was an alcoholic, he even pointed it at us a couple of times. In general only people living in the countryside or ex-soldiers own guns and only the latter are so in love with them.

I guess it's just cultural differences that I will never get like their love for bacon or calling Handegg football.

 

[SuAside]

You make fun of it, but think about if the Las Vegas shooter threw knives out of the window!

I hope you realize that this was likely the first time a high IQ person went ahead with this kind of attack right since Timothy McVeigh? From what we know, Paddock was smart and planned everything meticulously. He was also able to make TATP (as said by LVPD & the FBI), so if you think he would be unable to reach the same death toll without slidefire stocks or firearms, look at the Oklahoma City bombing.

It doesn't really take high IQ to pull this off, of course, but it helps with not getting caught early.

There are no defensive tools, as every weapon is offensive by its very nature. Every offensive weapon can be used in defense as well, but their primary use is as an offensive object.

The FBI & CDC would argue differently since their statistics show that firearms owned by civilians are multiple times more likely to be used in defense than in crime. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're just trying to find a semantic way out of the discussion.

A firearm is a tool, in the end what the tool does is entirely irrelevant as it's the actor who decides what the tool becomes.

You may claim ICBMs are "offensive weapons", but none have ever been used in conflict. They have been merely used for defense by Mutually Assured Destruction. That doesn't mean they can't be used offensively if a mad man controls them, but that doesn't change the fact that ICBMs have never been used offensively until now.

I know you love guns Sua, and I wouldn't want to take yours away. But please ... you know that weapons like guns are not 'defensive tools' first, that's how the majority today in civiliced western nations might see them, but that's not their design. A revolver, rifle or what ever, is ALWAYS designed with the intention to be offensive first, there is no 'defensive' function on a rifle or hand gun.

Don't make me laugh, a large portion of firearms are designed for sporting purposes. Their design is not optimized for either offensive or defensive use, so claiming universal truths that "all guns are offensive" is downright ignorant even if you want to debate what constitutes defensive use.

A delivery truck or van isn't designed as an offensive tool either, but it sure proved effective enough in France & Spain lately.

The very idea behind that phrase is alien to me. That it is OK for things to be so dangerous that one actually feels the need to carry a weapon in public in case that he might need to shoot someone for self defence, and it not being an overreaction.

Sure, and that's fine. I personally would not concealed carry a firearm even if I could in every day life. I may carry a gun if it were legal and I had to go to a bad neighborhood or something, but other than that, probably not.

The Americans have a saying "better to have it & not need it, than need it & don't have it".

Who am I to make that choice for others? There are people who LIVE in horrendous neighborhoods and that run risk on a daily basis. Not to mention that the vast majority of women are physically simply less capable to deal with an attack. Firearms are a great equalizer.

I guess it's just cultural differences that I will never get like their love for bacon or calling Handegg football.

It's not like it's an American thing though.
Switzerland issues assault rifles to everyone who did military service. They are so at ease with guns that they have shooting ranges that shoot over covered streets and have targets next to pastures with cows. Their yearly shooting events like knabenschiessen sets up temporary ranges where if one were to aim 20° to the left, they'd be shooting into a town. They don't even put up a partition wall or backstop for it because they know people are drilled to be careful.
The Czech Republic actively promotes concealed carry to all citizens in an effort to lower crime rates.
So sure, cultural differences compared to the Americans, but closer to home we have our own brand of it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The FBI & CDC would argue differently since their statistics show that firearms owned by civilians are multiple times more likely to be used in defense than in crime. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're just trying to find a semantic way out of the discussion.

That's not the point I was making though.

No weapon, by it's very nature is a 'defensive' tool. They are first and foremost offensive objects, as that is simply the design of all weapon systems, some do better jobs than others because they have different roles as a shootgun has definetly a different function than a sniper rifle. But, they all can be used in offensive ways, from a simple hand gun, to any radar technology.

The best defense, is a good offense. This as a philosophy holds true for individuals armed with a hand gun, and a nation using radar equipment to track incoming missiles. The point is, that all equipment can be included in an offensive manouver, even if it is used for 'defense' in peace time. So the transition here is just the use of the equipment, which means that there is no defensive weapon.

What is the difference between a guy using his 38. to fend of a burgular and a burgular using the 38. to invade a homeowner? Ofense and defense can change in an instant in such a scenario. What use, would a weapon be that is only usefull when someone directly comes to 'attack' you, but if you could not actually act on your own for example to 'fight' an apparant threat.

If a weapon, like a rifle could be only used in a defensive position, then it would be actually a useless weapon, since any attacker would have an advantage with a weapoin that is offensive, since any offensive weapon can also be used in a defense. That's like talking about martial arts, that only deflect blows, but never actually deal any.

You may claim ICBMs are "offensive weapons", but none have ever been used in conflict. They have been merely used for defense by Mutually Assured Destruction.

That never stoped either the Soviets or the US from a strategic planing, which involved "First strikes" (and some military personal actually even advocating it! See Curtis Le May). That most probably no one would be left to claim victory is most probably the reason that held the leaders back. But that doesn't change the fact that you could create offensive strategies and also use them in such a scenario.

Don't make me laugh, a large portion of firearms are designed for sporting purposes. Their design is not optimized for either offensive or defensive use, so claiming universal truths that "all guns are offensive" is downright ignorant even if you want to debate what constitutes defensive use.

Without any offense (no pun intended, I swear!), but I think you're a bit biased as a gun enthusiast. I am not your typical WEAPONS ARE TO BE FEARED! Moron, I understand that you don't want people to think that you or your equipment is a huge problem, you in particular though are not the dangerous factor here.

Looking at it from a historical point of view, the overwhelming majority of 'shooting sports' even going as far back as to the long bow had simply militaristic backgrounds, not unlike many martial arts sports today which started their tradition in training for warefare. And even today, many old marksman clubs in Europe still respect the historical origin as a town militia even if their focus today is on olympic shooting or sport shooting. The whole sport behind Biathlon actually started as an activity that was an exercise for Norwegian people as an alternative training for the military. While probably 99% of the sport shooters today don't practise or use their weapons with any militaristic intention behind it and just for fun, there can be no question that an AR 15 or anything comparable could also make a decent weapon to fend someone off, if the need ever arrised. Particularly if the shooters know what they are doing. If some foreign nation would invade your place, you can't tell me that your skills and your weapon arsenal wouldn't come in handy compard to someone who has nothing else but kitchen knives at his home ... let us not kid our selfs here. It's like as If I would claim my exprience in Judo and Jiu Jitsu doesn't give me the edge over someone who's doing nothing. That doesn't mean that I am blood thirsty killer or something, but I have to be aware about what I am capable off with the correct training!

Because if what you say is correct, than the argument of "SECOND AMANDMENT!" would hold absolutely zero water, since those weapons could never ever be used effectively to fend off a military force with actuall 'military' equipment in the first place. But I think various wars have clearly shown what a few determined guys, with semi automatic rifles and even bolt rifles can achieve against a vastly supperior force. Of course if you have nothing else but a hand gun you're not walking right up to someone armed with an assault rifle to 'kill' him, you will bring your self in a position where you can take the enemy by surprise and suddenly your 'defensive' weapon becomes an 'offensive' one.

I think history is simply on my side of this argument when we're talking about guns.

A delivery truck or van isn't designed as an offensive tool either, but it sure proved effective enough in France & Spain lately.

And a hammer can be used to crush someones skull and a screwdriver to pierce someones heart. But that doesn't change the fact that cars and trucks are means of delivery and that they are designed as such, where weapons are designed as 'weapons' and not as tools, that's why we call them weapons and not something else. A trucks purpose is to get something from A to B, a hammers purpose to hammer nails. A weapons purpose is to shoot a target. Any target. Living or paper. And a good weapon, hits its target.

I find it very dishonest from weapon owners, if they totally dismiss the lethal capability of their guns simply because THEY are the people that take them only to the shooting range and because the MAJORITY of them are responsible weapon owners. As like anyone of us with reasonable minds, suggest that you or the majority of weapon holders out there, would be lunatics or using your weapons for anything else but positive activites. But again, that doesn't change what the INTENDED design of a weapon is. And yes, this also counts for objects that are not guns.

A 'battle' axe, certainly has a very different intention behind it's design than your typical wood axe, despite the fact that both can used to kill someone.

But an AK doesn't suddenly turn in to a denfensive AK because it was changed for a civilian market. It just means, that it's less capable of doing as much damage like the automatic version, but a group armed with semi automatic AKs, can still do some damage even to a better armed force. Some Afghans used to fight Soviet troops with nothing but self made Enflied rifles after all, go figure.

It's not like it's an American thing though.
Switzerland issues assault rifles to everyone who did military service. They are so at ease with guns that they have shooting ranges that shoot over covered streets and have targets next to pastures with cows. Their yearly shooting events like knabenschiessen sets up temporary ranges where if one were to aim 20° to the left, they'd be shooting into a town. They don't even put up a partition wall or backstop for it because they know people are drilled to be careful.

Yes Switzerland is different because they are a nation that actually does have a militia. They actually train their people.

Firearms legislation in Switzerland is comparatively liberal, more similar to gun politics in the United States than to that in most European Union countries. The reason is a long tradition of shooting (tirs) as a formative element of national identity in the post-Napoleonic Restoration of the Confederacy,[1] and the long-standing practice of a militia organization of the Swiss Army in which soldiers' service rifles are stored privately at home. In addition to this, many cantons (notably the alpine cantons of Grisons and Valais) have strong traditions of hunting, accounting for a large but unknown number of privately held hunting rifles.

If the US was at least like Switzerland ... than that would be an actuall improvement.

 

[Darice]

I live in Brasil... Guns aren't legalized to the civilians and still we have like.. + - 50.000 Homicides per year by gun. That makes Brasil one of the most violent countries in the world, our death rate exceeds those of countries in warzones, maybe because there is kinda of an urban war in Brasil in mostly all the major metropolis and even on the smaller towns.

that statistic of 50.000 killings per year is problably way bigger in reality.. because the autorities resposible for those studies tend to hide or pretend somethings never happened.

I have nothing against guns themselves because i believe evil, violence and bloodlust is just part of who we are as a species.. the gun is not the culprit for the kill.. we are the culprit's of the kill and for making the gun in the first place. I Also find fascinating something's about guns.. guess we're all just obsessed with power.
But let's rapt this up.. i'm against guns being all around, easily obtainable by anyone. Because people in general terms can't be trusted, especially with a weapon so powerful as a gun.

Sorry folks.. Admire guns in a sports kinda of way like hunting.. or shooting those little aims.. but don't admire it as a tool of war being used against people.. and acessible by anyone.

I hope i didn't offend anyone

 

[Walpknut]

But guns were legal in Brazil until very recently, you can't undo all the gun violence product of years of legalized gun ownership and laws aren't magical retroactive reality warpers. Some studies een show that since the disarmament began deaths related to gun usage have decreased.

 

[Darice]

But guns were legal in Brazil until very recently, you can't undo all the gun violence product of years of legalized gun ownership and laws aren't magical retroactive reality warpers. Some studies een show that since the disarmament began deaths related to gun usage have decreased.

Well.. they kinda still are legal.. it is possible to have a license and buy guns. But it isn't as simple as in other countries.. there are very specific requirements.

But that actually matters very little.. because 90% of gun violence here in Brasil isn't related to domicile use. Law Enforcement (Death Squads) and criminal factions like the P.C.C or Comando Vermelho (Red Rule) take responsabilitie for all those gun violence statistics. People in Brasil kill like it's nothing.. there's a region in Brasil called ''Para'' which you can actually order a hitman with like 50 reais.. which is equivalent to 15 dollars so so.

 

[Darice]

But guns were legal in Brazil until very recently, you can't undo all the gun violence product of years of legalized gun ownership and laws aren't magical retroactive reality warpers. Some studies een show that since the disarmament began deaths related to gun usage have decreased.

And also since 2015 and 2016... the violence in Brasil went sky high like never before.. even with the civilian populace not being armed... If we were armed.. dude.. i would run like never before to get out of this country. I know a lot of people who would've already killed if they had a gun.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The thing is just that I don't believe more guns to a situation which already has a gun problem can be in any way a viable solution. I mean I sometimes think, for gun nuts in the US places like Somalia must be a real dream land, I mean totall freedom, no gun restriction, no state of any sort.

If a society requires guns to be 'save' - or feel save at least, than something is wrong with the society. I also have my doubts that weapons really increase your safety anyway. Sure, it can prevent some crime I have no doubts about it. But the best protection in the long run is a functioning society, with a capable police force, a good jurisdiction and decent stability within the population where not to many people are poor and the difference between the poor and rich is to large. Yes, a police officer can't be there for you ALL the time, but a gun can also not protect you ALL the time. It's so damn easy to hide a knive, or a pistol, or other objects and attacking someone by surprise. But when people walk around all the damn time like paranoid lunatics, than who can blame them if they become trigger happy?

But of course, tackling that is a hell of a lot more difficuiilt than MAH GUNZ! Which is for some like the holy grail for everything.

 

[Walpknut]

The thing with us Lat Am countries is that corruption runs rampant. The social disparity is insane. Did I tell you guys about the crazy ass Ghetto the Police literally razed to the ground? It had shit from drug trafficking to child prostitution going on there, and they even found a live crocodile in a pit they seemingly used to dispose of dead bodies.

Then we had the recent tragedy where, as part of the peace treaty there was a dispposal of illegal crops (coca mostly) but the police opened fire on a countryside community and even killed children. There was a huge outrage over it an it put the peace treaty in danger.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, it shows the amount of mental gymnastics required if some gun-nut has to talk about such nations as examples of how 'great' weapons are to fend of crime ... LOOK BRAZIL NEEDS THEM TOO! Damn criminal scum! MAH HOME IS MAH CASTLE!

Because that is the problem right there, talking about the symptoms, never the cause what ever you do just never ever even think about it! MAH GUNZ! MAH LIBERTY! Gun culture being a problem? Disparity in income? And all the other issues in the American society, making mostly white dudes going haywire with their weapon arsenal? At least they didn't blame metal music or video games. This time. Heh, some news anchor even wanted to blame this on hotels for some reason ... It is a sad reality, that the next guy has to do even something more terrible to get in to the news.

I think at the end of the day, funnily enough, Bill O’Reilly kinda said it the best what the issue is here:

And this is also America in a nutshell really, only when it comes to weapons do they argue so much in favour of 'individual' rights. Muslims or health care? Forget it.

No clue what his intentions are but that is what it comes down to and people, gun owners or not should be simply honest about it. It's puting guns before lives. And I do not believe that the majority is actually aiming at liberty and protection. No, it's simply fun to have them. It's funn to shoot them. They are awesome toys. That's what they are. There are simply way to many people being enthusiastic about their little gun collection, that I even believe the main reason is "protection". Sometimes the idea of protection and the fun of owning weapons come together yes, no doubts about it, but weapons and martial arts have a hell of a lot in common here. And honestly, most people practise martial arts because it's a fun activity. Self defense is an added bonus here. Doesn't mean the people are evil or anything.

 

[SuAside]

You seem caught in some very weird semantic battle, Crni Vuk.

What is the difference between a guy using his 38. to fend of a burgular and a burgular using the 38. to invade a homeowner?

What's the difference? That the vast majority of people would say that the home owner was justified in his actions, whereas the burglar should be convicted of his crimes and be locked away?

That never stoped either the Soviets or the US from a strategic planing, which involved "First strikes" (and some military personal actually even advocating it! See Curtis Le May). That most probably no one would be left to claim victory is most probably the reason that held the leaders back. But that doesn't change the fact that you could create offensive strategies and also use them in such a scenario.

Sure. Hell, the military would have been pretty damn bad at their job if they did not have plans for all that. Hell, the USA even has plans to both bomb and invade their closest allies (like Canada).

But ICBMs are also what can be credited with preventing further escalation of the Cold War.

It's like as If I would claim my exprience in Judo and Jiu Jitsu doesn't give me the edge over someone who's doing nothing. That doesn't mean that I am blood thirsty killer or something, but I have to be aware about what I am capable off with the correct training!

Sure, but why do you view that as a problem?

Of course if you have nothing else but a hand gun you're not walking right up to someone armed with an assault rifle to 'kill' him, you will bring your self in a position where you can take the enemy by surprise and suddenly your 'defensive' weapon becomes an 'offensive' one.

I think you're misunderstanding my side of the argument. The weapon is an inert tool. It's what people do with it which can be offensive or defensive. You say all guns are offensive. Yes, I agree, if they are used offensively. But in the absolute vast majority of cases they aren't. Thus they aren't offensive tools.

But that doesn't change the fact that cars and trucks are means of delivery and that they are designed as such, where weapons are designed as 'weapons' and not as tools, that's why we call them weapons and not something else.

Do you call a competition bow a weapon too?
Or a HEMA sword?
Where do you draw the line?

Do you realize that in the vast majority of the western world, screw drivers are used in more murders than firearms are?

I find it very dishonest from weapon owners, if they totally dismiss the lethal capability of their guns simply because THEY are the people that take them only to the shooting range and because the MAJORITY of them are responsible weapon owners.

What is there dishonest about our stance? Guns are lethal. But so are many other things.
But so is my car. So is my ability to make TATP explosive or poison gas.

As like anyone of us with reasonable minds, suggest that you or the majority of weapon holders out there, would be lunatics or using your weapons for anything else but positive activites.

Reasonable? Why do you assume that your arguments are the only which matter? What gives you the right to decide for the rest of us?

Yes Switzerland is different because they are a nation that actually does have a militia. They actually train their people.

If the US was at least like Switzerland ... than that would be an actuall improvement.

So your analysis of the difference between the US and Switzerland is that Switzerland has compulsory military service? No. The difference is cultural & economic. Switzerland is a prosperous and relatively homogeneous.

Military service doesn't magically turn you into a good person that's unable to commit gun violence.

Hell, in the past few decades the US has started to find out that quite a few gang bangers join the Army or Marines, which they then leave to rejoin their gangs and bring back their military experience.

Some studies een show that since the disarmament began deaths related to gun usage have decreased.

You mean like the often quoted "huge success" of the Australian gun laws? It's funny that those studies and articles fail to point out that the much lauded decrease in violence had started BEFORE the laws even went into effect. Attributing this decrease to the gun laws is dishonest at best.

Or the same statistics which use suicides as "murders"?
Or fail to account for a rise in murders using weapons other than firearms?

If a society requires guns to be 'save' - or feel save at least, than something is wrong with the society.

Do you not realize that in many places in the USA people live in locations where it takes the police at least 45 minutes to show up when called? What are you going to do in the meantime? Pray?

The government CANNOT protect you at all times, so why do you solely rely on it? Hell, the US Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Let that sink in for a moment.

But the best protection in the long run is a functioning society, with a capable police force, a good jurisdiction and decent stability within the population where not to many people are poor and the difference between the poor and rich is to large.

Sure, but how is taking away people's guns going to change anything of what you just said?
Until you create a perfect society, why not allow people to protect themselves with the best tools we have for the job?

But when people walk around all the damn time like paranoid lunatics, than who can blame them if they become trigger happy?

Statistics seem to point that civilians which concealed carry are both less likely to shoot and are more accurate in their shooting than the average police officer. If you have any evidence of your "trigger happy" reference, post it. Because as far as I know, there is none.

Yeah, it shows the amount of mental gymnastics required if some gun-nut has to talk about such nations as examples of how 'great' weapons are to fend of crime ... LOOK BRAZIL NEEDS THEM TOO! Damn criminal scum! MAH HOME IS MAH CASTLE!

An individual person cannot change his country alone. He can however try to protect his loved ones & his property.
If someone doesn't steal, doesn't break into houses, does not attack people, then the likelihood of getting shot by a legal civilian gun owner is very small. Smaller than getting struck by lightning in my own country.

Because that is the problem right there, talking about the symptoms, never the cause what ever you do just never ever even think about it!

Guns don't kill people on their own...
So why do you keep talking about tighter gun laws while you (indirectly) have to agree that guns are not the problem?

making mostly white dudes going haywire with their weapon arsenal

Funny, because white dudes are statistically underrepresented in gun crime statistics. But sure, let's not let reality get in the way of your emotional kneejerk reactions.

It's puting guns before lives.

Freedom before lives.
Self-determination before lives.
Self-reliance before lives.

Sure. Everything has a cost. And the benefit is worth the cost to many people like myself.

 

[Walpknut]

It's funny, when it comes to having guns everywhere everything is directly related in favor of it, as soon as multiple exmaples of countries with stricter gun laws show that there is a direct decrease in gun violence and crime then there are all the buts and ifs possible. Mental Gymnastics doesn't even describe it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You seem caught in some very weird semantic battle, Crni Vuk.

No, no I am not.

Even the fucking NRA saw guns as "offensive" weapons ...

>>“And I remember distinctly fom those times that the NRA instructor and the NRA handbook both said that there are certain circumstances in which firearms, which are an offensive weapon, are not appropriate. Settings with large groups of people, such as theaters, public transit, airports, schools, churches — these are all places that the NRA used to instruct people are not good places to have firearms.”<<

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-popovic/nra-chicago-newsroom_b_2744523.html

But that was a long time ago before they became the political voice of gun manufacturers and when the NRA was actually made up of gun owners, advocating gun safety. Go figure ...

Firearms, simply put are NOT defensive weapons:

 

[Walpknut]

Japan has virtually zero gun violence and their gun laws are the most strict in the world.