That's all fine and dandy but the only change of the course that being armed in the good old genocide/state purification/purge is that you'll maybe kill one or two bad guys before being turned into a cheese grater, optimally with slo mo and epic/tragic music playing at the same time, and ideally if that is supposed to drive the plot forward or motivate the main characters.
I'd much rather die taking two of those fuckers with me rather than to quietly die. At least then they will kill no one else...
And today most likely even the most moustache twirling villain wouldn't do the good old and tested "dragging people to the street and shooting them in the face" instead of, say, just frame them as sub humans, cause "accidents" or just throw a bioweapon into the water supply, I don't even know.
People who commit genocide are not cartoon villains. They are your neighbors.
The moment you start viewing them as merely monsters, you lose perspective.
Were the Japanese-American citiziens only responsible of their own security before the fact of being driven to their respective concentration camps, or am I missing something?
You seem to blissfully ignote them gun owners that weren't affected by that and didn't move a toe, despite knowing, hum. Let's get it straight, it's about protecting your OWN shit or about protecting your glorious nation from tyranny?
I'm at a loss why it can't be both?
Even if I take Iceland, if I would remove every single gun, how can anyone use a gun in any crime or viollence?
That's only true when dealing in absolutes. And also entirely neglects to take into account how easy it is to make improvised weapons with a very basic toolshop at your disposal.
An armed population in Srebrenica wouldn't have stoped the genocide, the serbian Army would have simply declared a siege over the city and bombed it to kingdom come, as how they've done it many times when they encountered armed civilians. Only an equally equiped force can stop an army equiped with tanks, artillery and larger weapons.
Or UN forces with proper air support and non-retarded rules of engagement.
So unless a civilian population is at all times ready to wage a war, then I am not sure what a few hand guns and rifles would have done here. Probably even more harm than good, as the Serbian army would have simply leveled everything by a bombardement with the civilians traped inside it.
More harm than good? They wholesale slaughtered the entire male population of that city. They raped the women.
If you're going to give me the choice between getting shelled into oblivion after shooting some asshole that's genociding my town or simply lining up in the forest and patiently wait to get machinegunned, I'll take the former.
Besides, no one here said, bann all weapons so the 'right' to bear arms can be still kept. We're still only talking about sensible regulations and laws.
Over the 15 years that I've been a gun owner myself, I've been through 3 thorough gun law reforms in my country. Each time, I was assured that this was sensible gun control and that it would be the last time we would have to make concessions. Each time, more sensible gun control was invented and shoved down our throats. Now, the 4th reform is lining up and it's more of the same.
Laws written by people who don't even know the difference between a magazine release and a trigger. I'll leave you to imagine what kind of pants on head retarded laws that spawns.
This is what people fear. It never fucking ends.
Just out of couriosity as a Belgian, do you feel you're living inside a tyranical regime?
No, our politicians are merely incompetent and self-serving, not knowingly malicious.
So countries in unstable states due to civil wars product of american historical meddling in their affairs? That's what you are comparing the US to, a country that hasn't experienced any civil warfare or direct rammification of war, yet has the highest death by gun violence rates among first world countries?
The "country that hasn't experienced any civil war" nearly made me blow my drink through my nose.
But yes, why wouldn't I also keep in mind those statistics? Are the people living their subhuman somehow? Hell, some of the american gun violence is even connected to the shit going on in those hell holes.
Can you argue that allowing people to easily acquire and freely carry firearms is unjustified if it enables one person to defend themselves from an attack whilst simultaneously resulting in a dozen others being unable to avoid an attack, or getting shot? Yes, you absolutely can. These are precisely the sorts of discussions that lawmakers have when gauging whether a law is in the overall interest of their citizens.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to have it. But that doesn't mean everyone else in this thread should just bend over & take it.
Your portrayal of self-defense shootings is also extremely simplistic.
Of course they have. But why should they get to decide that this cost is worth it on behalf of the actual victims?
Because they consider it their right as a citizen and subjectively value the positive effects more than the negative effects?
You can't just kick illegal firearm use under the rug, because it's part of the exact same problem. Where do you think most illegally owned firearms come from? They start out as legally owned firearms and get stolen and resold. A huge part of gun control law is an effort to reduce the number of guns in circulation in a country and minimise the risk of guns entering the illegal market.
That's wrong in my country, at least.
The vast majority of firearms used in crime are:
- Converted "alarm pistols" made to fire real ammunition.
- Smuggled from the eastern block & balkan.
- Improperly "demilitarized/deactivated" weapons which were sold as display pieces and were then reactived.
I totally forgot that random anecdotes are the only really reliable kind of evidence.
Never presented it as such, Bux. I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm already wasting enough time in this thread without having to find you scientific papers backing up my opinions.
I'm not sure exactly how is rebuttable in any way
the famous 2008 data of 12k gun related deaths in the US versus 11 on Japan. I've said not already, if this somehow is COMPLETELY inconsequential or worse in the United States, you can't say you don't have a problem.
Gee, I wonder if there were other differences between those countries.
One is a small extremely structured society that praises self-sacrifice, where the largest crime syndicates keep a tight reign on crime and is a country with little to no immigrants.
The other is the US.
Gee, I guess it really is simply because GUNS!
Very different beast. You could theoretically defang the drug problem by introducing law to take as much profit as possible out of the illicit drug trade; that doesn't translate well to the illicit gun trade, as you obviously can't reach any similar compromise with people who wish to use guns for illegal purposes.
I would agree, the war on drugs is a very bad analogy for gun crime.
It is funny to imagine someone trying to secrete condom-wrapped rifle parts out of their ass, though.
The KGB had a lipstick type gun which could be smuggled up their assholes.
The more you know...
Weirdly enough, since Trump's election the general feeling of "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE MUH GUNS FROM ME SO I'LL BUY A TON OF GUNS BEFORE THEY COME!!" went so low that Remington went bust.
To be fair, that was due to incompetence on Cerberus' part.
Which brings us to the issue, gun culture in the US nedlessly kills people.
You say "needlessly", but a lot of people would argue against that.
IMO, it's always the pro gun people in these topics who like to frame the argument about it being a draconian ban on all guns, even if nobody even argued in favor of such a thing at all during the thread.
That may have to do with our experience of losing rights time & time again and never getting them back?
Also, how about someone proposes something useful to deal with mental health concerns rather than trying to ban certain safety features on guns, for fucks sake?
Usually what gets the gun zealots worked up is when people start talking about banning 'assault weapons'. You have to understand how much people love to jerk off about shit like that in rural areas of this country. They couldn't possibly fathom living in a world where they can't own 27 AR-15s.
It probably has nothing to do with the fact that so called "assault weapons" are extremely under-represented in gun crime statistics and are far less powerful then most common hunting firearms?
But yes, let's talk about banning them because they look scary on TV.
Yet cars are highly regulated and nobody is afraid of a ban on all motor vehicles.
Funny. My country just banned "old" (really not that old) diesel cars from a few of our major cities. It is also illegal for me to modify my car in such a way that would make it more safe. I cannot install aftermarket brakes for instance. Nor can I legally put in a roll cage. Nor can I legally engine-swap my car to put in a less powerful less polluting more efficient engine.
Times are a-changin', Walpknut.
I am seriously considering to get an FN Fal at some point when I have the money for it - should be legal in Germany.
It is.
Join the dark side, Crni Vuk.
I mean this is how civiliced societes work, you have to find the middle ground somewhere.
The middle ground of two batshit insane propositions still may put you square in batshit insane territory though.
