Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[Chiki]

In response to Parrhesia and Raven, if you think that restrictions guns will prevent deaths, check out statistics in totalitarian governments. In Mao's China, over 76 million people died. 60 million died in Soviet Russia, and over 20 million more in Nazi Germany. These statistics are backed up by RJ Rummel, who has published extensive searches and also a book on democide. You can easily find his stuff simply by searching democide.

The point is, reducing guns does not reduce death. Of course, I'm not saying that if there are no guns the country is totalitarian, or vice versa. However, there seems to be a correlation between the two, and the statistics speak for themselves when those cross paths.

Also, in response to Chiki, that is a solid point, and I wish the world would work like that. Unfortunately, if guns were banned, criminals would still go after them. Just because rape is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Same case with theft, and many other crimes. If guns were illegal, then gun crime would still happen. The main difference would be that the law-abiding citizens who would otherwise have guns would be stuck defending themselves with an inferior weapon/tool. And in that case, the criminal will win almost every time.

First point about totalitarian countries is completely irrelevant, since we're talking about the usage of guns by civilians, not by the government.

Second, yes criminals would go after them, but it's much better than nothing.

[Blaze The Great]

First point about totalitarian countries is completely irrelevant, since we're talking about the usage of guns by civilians, not by the government.

Second, yes criminals would go after them, but it's much better than nothing.

The first point was meant to address the problem of totalitarian governments and gun control. Granted, guns might not change much against the military, but they at least offer people a last line of defense.

Secondly, who are you going to protect yourself from besides criminals? If gun control was enacted, then there probably would be fewer gun crimes committed, but the majority would be left defenseless against the criminals with illegal guns.

[Chiki]

The first point was meant to address the problem of totalitarian governments and gun control. Granted, guns might not change much against the military, but they at least offer people a last line of defense.

Secondly, who are you going to protect yourself from besides criminals? If gun control was enacted, then there probably would be fewer gun crimes committed, but the majority would be left defenseless against the criminals with illegal guns.

This isn't addressed to you, but if someone thinks having a totalitarian government in the US is a problem then they're a paranoid lunatic who should be locked up imo. Like Alex Jones.

It's not like you're completely safe even with a gun, unless you literally have a rifle by your side 24/7. Most people don't carry guns with them outside. They could get shot from behind, be caught before they can grab their gun, get shot before you can shoot the criminal, etc. Guns aren't as helpful as people think they are. It's not a ticket to safety. It's just a ticket to more needless deaths.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Chiki

[Blaze The Great]

This isn't addressed to you, but if someone thinks having a totalitarian government in the US is a problem then they're a paranoid lunatic who should be locked up imo. Like Alex Jones.

It's not like you're completely safe even with a gun, unless you literally have a rifle by your side 24/7. Most people don't carry guns with them outside. They could get shot from behind, be caught before they can grab their gun, get shot before you can shoot the criminal, etc. Guns aren't as helpful as people think they are. It's not a ticket to safety. It's just a ticket to more needless deaths.

I agree with your first point, and I do not think that gun control =/= totalitarian government. I'm just pointing out historic examples of when these two came together.

While your second point is true, there are three counters I have to it. 1) There are always exceptions to the rule. 2) As an extension to point 1, the possibility of a victim having a gun could very likely deter a criminal. 3) Crimes that occur in a home still may be stopped.

[Rapier]

The thought that banning or heavily restricting guns will stop criminals from using guns in crimes is ridiculous. Criminals can get ilegal guns, and there are plenty of sources in America (not the US, the continent). So criminals will get guns regardless if they're prohibited or not. It's a completely different case than Australia, a small island nation in the middle of the ocean, where people will have a very hard time buying illegal guns from terrorist organizations.

Any further argument based in the premise that banning guns will stop criminals from using guns will be flawed, because the premise is false.

Heavily restricting or banning guns will hinder civilians from arming themselves for self-defense. That's all such action would accomplish.

It's funny how some anti-gun people seem to forget those times when someone with a gun has stopped some maniac from killing more people. Allowing civilians to bear arms actually lowers deaths in mass shootings.

[Chiki]

1) There are always exceptions to the rule. 2) As an extension to point 1, the possibility of a victim having a gun could very likely deter a criminal. 3) Crimes that occur in a home still may be stopped.

1) No there are not. That is literally the biggest myth in the history of informal reasoning. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

2) This is more than balanced by there being a much greater number of criminals with guns.

3) Only a "may." It's not a ticket to protection like gun-freaks like to act it is.

The thought that banning or heavily restricting guns will stop criminals from using guns in crimes is ridiculous.

Copy paste where someone said that it would literally stop using criminals from using guns.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

Copy paste where someone said that it would literally stop using criminals from using guns.

If it won't stop criminals (because criminals can buy it ilegally), then what is the point of prohibiting or heavily restricting guns? It makes no sense. Also, we could impose a heavy psychological and criminal check criteria for bearing one, making it harder for unfit people to bear arms.

You may claim (as you have done before) that it at least slightly improves the situation. I challenge that claim. I've brought up cases where people with guns stopped mass killings from criminals with guns (who would get weapons regardless if these are legally available or not). With guns available, civilians can defend themselves. Without them, criminals will monopolize guns and hold an advantage over civilians. There's no possibility where criminals and civilians have no access to guns. Instead, on basis of this, I claim that it worsens the situation.

No there are not. That is literally the biggest myth in the history of informal reasoning. http://rationalwiki....proves_the_rule

Only a "may." It's not a ticket to protection like gun-freaks like to act it is.

"There is an exception to the rule" =/= "The exception proves the rule". Both sentences are in no way conotative or denotatively similar.

Copy paste where someone said it is a ticket protection to gun-freaks.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

laws against drugs don't stop drug use

they just greatly reduce it

laws against rape don't stop rape

they just greatly reduce it

laws against theft don't stop theft

they just greatly reduce it

come on, man, this isn't rocket science

Edited June 21, 2015 by dondon151

[Chiki]

You may claim (as you have done before) that it at least slightly improves the situation. I challenge that claim. I've brought up cases where people with guns stopped mass killings from criminals with guns (who would get weapons regardless if these are legally available or not).

A few cases in which guns have stopped mass shootings doesn't prove that banning guns doesn't improve the situation.. it's just silly reasoning. Perhaps those mass shootings wouldn't have occurred at all if guns were banned.

Do you expect everyone to walk around with guns 24/7 or something?

"There is an exception to the rule" =/= "The exception proves the rule". Both sentences are in no way conotative or denotatively similar.

Copy paste where someone said it is a ticket protection to gun-freaks.

They mean the same thing. "prove" doesn't mean prove in that context:

" The exception that proves the rule" is an exception to a generally accepted truth. This is an archaic use of the word 'prove', which means 'to test'

Italic = the way Blaze used the sentence. His argument was that there are exceptions to the safety of carrying guns (a general truth).

Tbh I'm getting tired of your creepy obsession with constantly trying to pick debates with me. It doesn't please me that I constantly have to put down the poor arguments you make.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Chiki

[Eail]

In response to people that say there would have been no way he could have gotten hold of a weapon if he lived in X country, i'll give you a fun little bit of trivia.

You have some spare pipe around that isn't total shit, and access to a welding machine?

Congrats, you're completely and quite easily able to make a Sten sub-machine gun in your back yard with an afternoon (or two) of work.

"But what about the bullets" You may ask. My answer for that is that it's a helluva lot easier to make ammunition than you might think, it's probably gonna be shit, but you could do it.

Mind you I in no way actually support going outside and DOING this, but it's something that can actually be done, and it's really not that difficult or expensive at all. (not going to link the Sten schematics ether)

[Rapier]

Copy paste where someone said that it [banning guns] would literally stop using criminals from using guns.

Perhaps those mass shootings wouldn't have occurred at all if guns were banned.

This is ironic. You may claim that the word 'perhaps' is an indicative that you're not affirming this, but it indicates you believe it is true, which is enough.

How is it silly reasoning? These cases were facts. And even if people don't walk with guns 24/7, as long as it slightly helps the situation, it's fine. We don't need a perfect solution, just one that at least improves our situation somewhat. Guns aren't tickets for safety, no one ever claimed such a thing, it's a strawman.

Do you deny that, if two or three of these victims had a gun, there's a high chance that they could have lowered the number of casualties and saved their lives? That would be silly.

I don't have obsessions with you, lol. It requires a lot of egoism to think so. Do you hold obsessions for feplus? I don't think so. Although I'm starting to think that learning from experience by clashing with smarter people is not very effective (to test myself is the biggest reason why I enter conflicts with you and dondon). I guess I should stick with your logic textbook, then try again at a later time.

@dondon

Greatly reducing gun availability to citizens will not stop criminals from getting guns from terrorist organizations, even if it makes it harder for criminals to get them (but much harder for civilians, because they don't have another way). These criminals will then use guns against unarmed civilians, who are put in a disadvantage by heavy gun restriction or ban laws. It makes people more vulnerable and/or overall incapable of defending themselves against criminals. Why would you ever want this?

This isn't rocket science, either. Drugs, rape and theft are essentially bad things. Guns are mere objects that can be used in both ways. How is it beneficial to turn citizens into sitting ducks?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Rapier

[Blaze The Great]

1) No there are not. That is literally the biggest myth in the history of informal reasoning. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

2) This is more than balanced by there being a much greater number of criminals with guns.

3) Only a "may." It's not a ticket to protection like gun-freaks like to act it is.

Ok I will concede that first point. However, fear is an important weapon, both for the perpetrator and the victim. If even 1% of criminals were cowards who were scared that the people they attacked had guns, that would be 1% fewer deadly gun crimes. Same with the house case, although this one is stronger, because a person could have their gun and wait for the criminal in their own house. Again, if just 1% of deadly gun crimes were prevented, that would be an improvement.

Rapier is righr, this isn't about some sort of magical ticket of safety that says "I have a gun, and now criminals with guns can't hurt me." It is about making sure that if there are criminals with guns, we are able to protect ourselves as best as we possibly can. It's far from a perfect situation, but it definitely improves our odds.

[Eail]

Blaze you and Rapier are bringing up good points about how even if there's a chance that someone can be defended by having a gun, they should be able to have one, ESPECIALLY in the case of a break in, as this video proves.

Warning, criminal gets shot for being a criminal and trying to break, enter, and probably murder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsAMSQ13bY

What do you think might have happened if the guy didn't have his gun?

[Klokinator]

Do you expect everyone to walk around with guns 24/7 or something?

If liberals weren't so terrified of seeing guns, the 20% of the population that likes them could walk around openly. Yet you wimps scream and call the police everytime you see a pistol on a hip. And then you wonder why nobody's there to save you when the armed attacker shoots you dead. It doesn't have to be 100% of the population. People were a lot safer before people said "hey let's ban open carry everywhere LOL'. I don't expect logic to work on you though, you've demonstrated sufficiently that only perfectly verified liberal sources are worth looking at, despite their clear and obvious bias.

[Phoenix Wright]

If liberals weren't so terrified of seeing guns, the 20% of the population that likes them could walk around openly. Yet you wimps scream and call the police everytime you see a pistol on a hip. And then you wonder why nobody's there to save you when the armed attacker shoots you dead. It doesn't have to be 100% of the population. People were a lot safer before people said "hey let's ban open carry everywhere LOL'. I don't expect logic to work on you though, you've demonstrated sufficiently that only perfectly verified liberal sources are worth looking at, despite their clear and obvious bias.

are you able to spout anything beyond nonsense lol

edit: i'd like clarification for something. in the us, sure, i can conceive that perhaps increased gun control can be more harmful for innocents because now innocents don't have a proper way of protecting themselves from potential violent criminals. but...what of other nations where this simply isn't a problem in the first place? those nations with small gun-related crime rates. would such an argument apply there as well?

i feel like this point isn't arguing from the perspective of a proactive solution to the problem (gun violence), and instead is merely a necessary effect of the underlying cause (that is, because gun crime rates are high, it is necessary for civilians to be able to carry legally for protection).

point being, i don't think the argument is sound when applied to the question: will it decrease gun crime? i think it's invalid to argue it would.

on the flip side, as i've said before, i am against banning guns. it wouldn't work.

the problem is due to, i think, poverty/destitution, poor education, and culture. there's a reason why san pedro sula, honduras is the way it is, versus bel air in california. i think a focus on gun control itself isn't a long term solution and should probably be ignored completely imo, and instead we should focus on the root issues.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

Uh, maybe I did not understand your argument, but you seem to be making a mountain over a molehill, or however the saying goes.

Regional issues are best treated with laws that deal with said issues, but these don't need to be applied to other places. In countries where there isn't much violence and people don't need guns (as in european countries, I think), I don't see why we should touch the issue. In countries where there is violence and guns can aid by giving citizens the ability to be properly armed to deal with criminals, then we should treat the issue.

I don't think it is valid to say that, because such solution doesn't work universally or isn't necessary universally, it is invalid. It is only invalid when treated like an universal solution.

Regarding solutions to the problem rather than dealing only with the collateral effects, I agree that we need to check for a solution. However, I think treating symptoms and collateral effects is important. If I have a fever, and because of that I have a headache, shouldn't I take medication for both? Treating the problem at its surface level is also important, until we can apply a solution. I think arguments that say "we should ignore the effects and go for the solution instead" are fallacious because they seem to be appeals to perfect solutions (I don't know if there are exceptions for this rule, though), and they're also false dilemmas because we can do both at the same time. That's what I got from what you said:

i think a focus on gun control itself isn't a long term solution and should probably be ignored completely imo and instead we should focus on the root issues.

At least.

[Klokinator]

i think a focus on gun control itself isn't a long term solution and should probably be ignored completely imo, and instead we should focus on the root issues.

I don't see what your beef is with me, given we both agree on this exact thing.

>links back to original post that started the entire debate

Edit: Actually that was the wrong post. Now I can't find it, lol.

Edit2: Oh it was still in the old topic. Derp.

You're going about this completely the wrong way. I wasn't talking about homeschooling. Honestly more people should be homeschooling, but then again we should all be working ten hours a week and have the richest economy on Earth, but since the corporate masters don't want to pay everyone fairly, that won't happen. Not for a long time if ever.

No, the real problem is shitty parents. The generation that was born in the year 1900 was one of the most prosperous and financially secure generations of our time. They started having children during the Roaring Twenties, when Calvin Coolidge specifically put the country on a specific track that boosted our economy and blasted us upwards in the world's radar. They grew up with lots of time on their hands compared to their parents, men busted ass on the job and women actually stayed home and taught the kids proper etiquette since with all this sudden newfound wealth all over America, they desired to live like the richer people did. The majority of the people were middle class, something not seen in world history until that point.

Now, Calvin Coolidge was an incredible president and very rare for his time. He simply didn't believe in 'action', he believed in the power of inaction. Deregulate more, let private competitive ownership run its course. His presidency stabilized the nation by opening up more markets, which in turn increased general wealth, which in turn allowed people to have more time to raise children.

But then after Coolidge came the whole WWII thing, and a bunch of mostly corrupt presidents. Around this time, credit banking came into existence starting around the 60's and gaining in popularity until the 90's. The problem with the last 100 years is SO much has happened, it's extremely difficult to point at a single factor that killed this country's economy. If you look at the fall of Rome VS the path America is on, you see a ton of parallels, but the biggest thing is that it took rome nearly 700 years to grow up, die off, and collapse. America has only taken about 150 years to maybe 200 years, starting from our explosion into the industrial age. When the family structure (which was carefully managed and maintained by external forces I might add) collapsed, it led to a generation that had to pay off incredible debts. But around that time was also the explosion of cheap, easy fun and games and other entertainment, like TV and video games.

The last part is really important. Why get up and go teach the kids how to fish, or bond with them, when the football game is on TV? Why would the kids wanna go fishing with dad when Mario could be being played right now? Etc. Eventually, parents taught their kids and bonded with their kids less and less. Kids also felt a huge generational gap because mom and dad were soooo stupid and couldn't even understand basic technology like video games and they're soooooo oppressive. You know, kids always complain that their parents don't "get" them. The really weird thing is, for over 6,000 years of human history, this was never as true as it's been in just the last 30 to 40 years. How many people have parents, let alone grandparents who are completely confused by technology? There's a serious divide between each generation.

This divide leads to resentment on a scale never seen before, as well as a technological aptitude level that varies dramatically. Couple this with family breakdown, lack of discipline, rise of Political Correctness where suddenly the millennial generation are more sensitive towards how their words might affect others (Leading many kids to feel that parents are old fashioned, racist, sexist, etc), automation eliminating tons of jobs while workforce equality increases the number of people of both sexes looking for jobs, the destruction of marriage, etc... all of this is combining to create what will surely be one of the most sudden, disgusting collapses of a nation in history.

So when I say this shooter kid is a victim of a breakdown in family structure, I do mean it. I feel the same way about many different gang-bangers and others of that sort. We're being victimized on a level rarely seen throughout human history by external forces we can't even begin to comprehend. And how could we? With the amount of terrifying technological progress humanity has made since just the 1950's, we can't even comprehend how this would affect us for the next 200 years. And if you think THAT is bad, just wait until the predicted technological singularity when a single robot mind achieves the brainpower of a human, let alone when one robot achieves the brainpower of all of humanity combined. We're not prepared. We're advancing far too fast.

This kid is a cold blooded killer, but you would be correct to blame the parents. You'd also have to blame all the other parents as well. And if anyone is reading my post who is also a parent, I can only hope you're putting effort into raising your kids to be upstanding human beings, because whether or not they become some mass-shooter or not, they could say something or do something which leads to a series of events that eventually disturbs and warps an improperly trained mind. The reason these have become so common isn't the fault of guns, isn't the fault of games, isn't the fault of bad parenting, isn't because of schooling or homeschooling, and it isn't about an undercurrent of endemic racism, it's because of all of those factors at once. Treating one factor is just a band-aid. You have to fix all of them at once or the result will be unnoticeable.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[Phoenix Wright]

Uh, maybe I did not understand your argument, but you seem to be making a mountain over a molehill, or however the saying goes.

Regional issues are best treated with laws that deal with said issues, but these don't need to be applied to other places. In countries where there isn't much violence and people don't need guns (as in european countries, I think), I don't see why we should touch the issue. In countries where there is violence and guns can aid by giving citizens the ability to be properly armed to deal with criminals, then we should treat the issue.

I don't think it is valid to say that, because such solution doesn't work universally or isn't necessary universally, it is invalid. It is only invalid when treated like an universal solution.

Regarding solutions to the problem rather than dealing only with the collateral effects, I agree that we need to check for a solution. However, I think treating symptoms and collateral effects is important. If I have a fever, and because of that I have a headache, shouldn't I take medication for both? Treating the problem at its surface level is also important, until we can apply a solution. I think arguments that say "we should ignore the effects and go for the solution instead" are fallacious because they seem to be appeals to perfect solutions (I don't know if there are exceptions for this rule, though), and they're also false dilemmas because we can do both at the same time. That's what I got from what you said:

At least.

bolded: i was under the impression that a majority of people in this topic felt that this was the case. is it not? do we feel that more guns put in more people's hands would lead to a decrease in gun violence only in the united states, or perhaps only in some regions in the united states? because it's not that i feel the uk or someplace should be touched, it's that if we applied similar laws there, would they see a similar decline in gun related crime? if honduras had lax gun control laws, thus allowing more citizens to carry weapons (which, actually they do), would san pedro see a decline in violent crime? what if we banned guns? i think, in either case, the result is ineffectual. just as if we only treated a headache, the fever wouldn't go away. i don't think it's important that we treat the headache at all, because, if we treat the underlying problem, the headache is sure to go away on its own. it's a waste, perhaps, to use time and resources treating a secondary issue.

italics: i see your point, and in many cases i would agree. but, only if i actually see it as a treatment in the first place. i do not see gun laws as a treatment of the issue. as i said, i don't think a ban would work, and i don't think less restrictive laws would work. i think focusing on the weapons themselves will not reduce gun crime. our focus should be on ridding the united states of poverty, improving our education system (especially in those regions where it is far below even american standards), and attempting to change our culture. but, when tragedies like this happen, what's always the area of interest? on the weapons themselves. our attention is misplaced. though i am not completely certain, it seems that is because it is our emotional reaction to tragedy. if we take a step back, perhaps we could see that gun laws themselves don't matter as much as we think they do one way or another.

what is important to note, stated before by someone else in the topic, is that violent crimes in general are on the decline. what is the reason for this? i don't really know. but it's certainly not because gun laws are changing one way or another.

I don't see what your beef is with me, given we both agree on this exact thing.

in my initial post to you, i said this already.

my beef is that i dislike very much how you argue. your fear-mongering tactics (what're you gonna do when your house is robbed and your neighbor doesn't have a gun), arguing from illogical extremes (all that crap about labor and death camps), and immature "ugh liberals" comments don't do well for the points you try to make.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[dondon151]

the problem is due to, i think, poverty/destitution, poor education, and culture. there's a reason why san pedro sula, honduras is the way it is, versus bel air in california. i think a focus on gun control itself isn't a long term solution and should probably be ignored completely imo, and instead we should focus on the root issues.

then change the gun culture

there are many steps to doing so, one of them being gun control laws

[Phoenix Wright]

as far as i can tell, all that would do is polarize the issue even more.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[dondon151]

everything will polarize the issue more when there are people like klok around

[blah the Prussian]

The first point was meant to address the problem of totalitarian governments and gun control. Granted, guns might not change much against the military, but they at least offer people a last line of defense.

There is, has been, and always will be a huge flaw to this argument that I just love to address. You assume that the majority of people are willing to die for their rights. So, how about it? If a neo nazi came to power in the US, how many people do you think would be willing to die to overthrow them? There's also the issue that if he dictator came to power in the first place, they must have a pretty large base of support. In Nazi Germany, if you legalized guns, the first target of the people would be the Jews; the SS wouldn't even need to get involved.

[Klokinator]

my beef is that i dislike very much how you argue. your fear-mongering tactics (what're you gonna do when your house is robbed and your neighbor doesn't have a gun), arguing from illogical extremes (all that crap about labor and death camps), and immature "ugh liberals" comments don't do well for the points you try to make.

Fair enough. I tried being logical and informed for 20 straight posts but if people are gonna ignore my points and nitpick tiny little things, I'm gonna call their stupid retorts stupid. It's how I am.

everything will polarize the issue more when there are people like klok around

Orly

laws against drugs don't stop drug use

they just greatly reduce it

laws against rape don't stop rape

they just greatly reduce it

laws against theft don't stop theft

they just greatly reduce it

come on, man, this isn't rocket science

Laws against drug use? Marijuana was banned and tons (TONS) of people still used it. The prohibition on Alcohol made it more desirable. In fact, while it's a poor correlation to say drug bans =/= gun bans, let's dissect it further. Kids want to do things that aren't allowed. When you make drugs taboo, many do drugs secretly to be cool and fight the law. And that's not anecdotal, so many people smoked marijuana despite it being illegal that memes are made of it. In fact, making any drug illegal has made its use increase. But if we're making the assertation that drug bans = gun bans, I guess this means banning guns will make them more desirable to young minds. Of course, this isn't the case, but it's basically what you're implying by lining up drugs, rape, and theft side by side.

Incidentally, rape is illegal, yet it still happens a shitton. And furthermore, even if it wasn't illegal, society frowning on it would still reduce the amount of rape anyway. And I don't mean 'frowning' as in "Gee, Bob raped Gina. What a sad man" I mean as in other countries where rapists get murdered, even for the slightest accusation. (And yes, this results in innocents being murdered and later found not guilty by dna exoneration, which is truly sad). Of course, most of these countries have it illegalized, but even if it wasn't illegal (And I don't mean, if it was legal, I simply mean not explicitly illegal) rape would happen about the same rate. The only benefit of making it lawfully illegal is that rapists are punished by the court system which can also exonerate falsely accused ones, even if their life is still completely ruined by such false claims. It's unfortunate, but the internet is forever, and all an employer has to do is google your name, find some top rated story about rape even if it's false, and you lose the job. These rumors don't go away either.

An important distinction is also that laws are created from what society thinks shouldn't be allowed. We make a law saying 'don't rape people' and anyone caught breaking that law is imprisoned (Or killed, I mean it's not always intentional but shootouts/etc do happen). We made laws saying 'don't do drugs', as in 'don't intake this substance into your own body and hurt yourself because we don't think you should have control over your own actions' (Seriously, whose business is it what I do with my own body, so long as it hurts nobody else?) and look where that led us. Again, it made drugs desirable to rebellious teenagers, which made it cool, people got addicted, and in the end America's War on Drugs is an abysmal failure.

But wait, there's more. We were clearly wrong about the war on drugs. What if the same people who initially supported a war on drugs are now also wrong about the war on guns? This is the problem with the 'progressive' movement. It always has to have a cause, something to do. Sometimes having a cause is not only the wrong thing to do, but it completely attacks the wrong issue. I repeat once more, the issue is not gun violence, it's violence in our society in general that uses guns. That video posted last page is a great example of course on self defense against a home invader with a gun, but it also demonstrates my point fully about violence in general. The assailant had a machete, and tore through that door like paper. Maybe he was hepped up on something, just a really strong guy, whatever. If guns were banned, he'd still be attacking, and in our violent society this would mean big buff dudes would now have basically a free license to assault, providing they avoid the police. (Again, when an attacker is seconds from killing you, cops are minutes away...) Furthermore, had the victim not had a gun, there's a good chance he and the other person in the video would be grievously injured if not dead.

We were wrong about the war on drugs, and maybe, just possibly, we were wrong about the war on guns.

By the way, I'll throw this out there. If America was like Britain was like Australia was like every other 'first world country' where they banned guns successfully (And again, it didn't make crime poof and go away, it just made gun killings go down drastically compared to other forms of killing) then great, I might even be all for it. The problem is our culture. Should the people rise up, overthrow the mainstream media and other corrupt institutions and begin preaching a country based on love and acceptance, I will agree that it's time to ban guns. Hell, Britain's cops don't even have guns. If our country could be similar, I'd love it.

bolded: i was under the impression that a majority of people in this topic felt that this was the case. is it not? do we feel that more guns put in more people's hands would lead to a decrease in gun violence only in the united states, or perhaps only in some regions in the united states?

By the way,no I don't agree with this statement. I simply feel that it would allow the violent attackers to face more opposition. Who would you rather die, Joe Blow defending his home from a criminal, or Steve Mcgeve attacking the home with a big gun? If we remove guns from society, gun deaths go down drastically. The issue is that guns, as a power equalizer, mean a home owner has an equal chance of killing an assailant as the assailant does killing the home owner.

And no, home owners and assailants are never the only cases, before someone nitpicks that point. There's tons of cases where having a gun to defend yourself works well, just as there are exceptions (Like husbands assaulting their wives with a gun) where it does not.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[Blaze The Great]

There is, has been, and always will be a huge flaw to this argument that I just love to address. You assume that the majority of people are willing to die for their rights. So, how about it? If a neo nazi came to power in the US, how many people do you think would be willing to die to overthrow them? There's also the issue that if he dictator came to power in the first place, they must have a pretty large base of support. In Nazi Germany, if you legalized guns, the first target of the people would be the Jews; the SS wouldn't even need to get involved.

If people were being massacred by the millions-and especially if the democide was indiscriminate-I believe that a lot of people would prefer to take their chances with a gun in hand. With the rise of the information age, word of what was going on would get out quickly, and people would be forced to choose who to support. Every government is a different scenario and in Nazi Germany, Hitler had been stirring up hatred for the Jews for years. In a normal society, there are inter-cultural issues, but not like there were in Nazi Germany.

[blah the Prussian]

If people were being massacred by the millions-and especially if the democide was indiscriminate-I believe that a lot of people would prefer to take their chances with a gun in hand. With the rise of the information age, word of what was going on would get out quickly, and people would be forced to choose who to support. Every government is a different scenario and in Nazi Germany, Hitler had been stirring up hatred for the Jews for years. In a normal society, there are inter-cultural issues, but not like there were in Nazi Germany.

This is all a hypothetical scenario, oh wait no its not. The Serbian government did some pretty fucked up shit to the Bosnians that could definitely be called genocide when the internet was in existence. Sure, the internet helped provoke a foreign response, but it took the UN to stop Milosevic.