Question For EUs

[Overdriven]

People in the United States don't have the second amendment to go hunting, or to kill people breaking into their house, or to protect themselves from thugs.  It's in place because the US started out as what we would today call a terrorist group, the second amendment exists because American citizens were allowed to bear arms and form a militia to eliminate our own government.  People like to forget that the 1776 American War of Independence wasn't AMURICA fighting against English invaders, we were fighting our own government.  The right to bear arms still exists in the U.S in case revolting against our government becomes an essential and completely ideal subject again.

You're right that effectively the War of Independence was a civil war of sorts. Before people get all patriotic, 'Americans' were a bunch of English (and others) merchants who just got a bit pissed at tax. The fact the right to bear arms still exists is a major over sight in the eyes of many around the world. In the modern world I would say it's completely out of place and unrealistic and simply an excuse for owning a gun. A bunch of hicks with guns are hardly likely to dent the might of the US military.

And before anyone brings up the fact a bunch of merchants beat the might of the British army, they were similarly armed, the British 'army' wasn't actually all that strong and to the British it was seen as a bit of a sideshow. Not to mention the country is across the Atlantic in a time when making that crossing meant weeks of travel. Sure the British lost some face in the War of Independence but that's it. In the modern world against the actual US military, it would be an utter slaughter if the citizens rebelled. So the right to bear arms means jack all in that argument.

Sure there are arguments for it. But I think those arguments are vastly outweighed by the simple statistics of gun related crime. And sure some states might have stricter gun laws blah blah as pointed out by Arathian. But the problem is the US is a country. Just because one state has strict gun laws, if another doesn't it means fuck all in real terms. If the entire country had the same strict gun laws then you would see a difference. Unless strict border controls between states existed then there's nothing to really stop the movement of firearms between states.

Equally bringing in nation wide gun laws now would be difficult. How would you confiscate the firearms already owned by millions of American's? I'm not sure you could and that's a problem.

You say "people without guns" like that is possible. Even in the worst police states, like England, one can EASILY find illegal weaponry. The only ones whom the laws disarm is the law-abbiding citizens.

That's not exactly true. Whilst you can find illegal weaponry it is expensive and usually organised. Your average criminal couldn't very easily without some money and some knowledge. That and the risks of using a gun, as in being caught with one, even committing a crime with one are actually bigger than other forms of weaponry. That's why knife crime is so much more common here. Most of us are perfectly happy and safe knowing that gun ownership is very low in the UK. Knives are much more of a worry but then they are also far less damaging in terms of just how many people you can hurt.

When they 'asked' people to hand in their illegal knives ect a few years ago they had a hugely positive response. People even handed in replica weapons from TV shows. People were very happy to because they weren't seen as a necessity. I guess it's a different culture to the US from that respect.

It's not the gun laws that killed those innocent 6-7 year old children and teachers. It's the mentality and mind of that autistic kid. If you got a fucked up brain like him and like the ones in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Guy in Finland who posted that youtube vid before he went on his spree. Hell even The Führer, then nothing will stop you from getting what you want.

They can take harmful acid or whatever from chemistry at school and make their own kinds of weapons. The only limit is their insane damaged brains and their own creativity.

What possible reasoning could he have killing these young innocent kids? His brain must've been severely damaged.

My cousin is autistic and I seriously doubt he's going to walk into a school and kill a lot of people. Sure there may have been other factors for that guy there but I think bringing up his mental condition is a poor excuse. If you make it easy for someone to obtain a gun, relatively speaking that is, then naturally you open the area up for the possibility of more things like this happening because more people with issues or whatever can have access to that ability to take someone's life. The easier you make it, the more likely it's going to happen. Mix that with I guess lack of care ect that this guy may have received and you have a recipe for a problem. Simply put, you can't ignore the fact that the ownership of a gun made this a lot easier to happen.

[Tibe]

(click to show/hide)

All right, here are some factoids. Make what you will with them:

-The country with the world's laxest gun restrictions is Switzerland. There are actual, real, civilian families that own tanks there.
-It is also one of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world
-The crime rate is indeed very high in the USA
-However, the states with the highest violent crime are the states with the highest gun restrictions
-Conversly, the states with the lowest violent crime are the state with the lowest gun restrictions.
-The biggest school massacre in the US history was done in 1927 using home-made explosives, not guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)

Now, I might be a gun nut, but any reasonable human being might see a pattern in here...

Frankly this was the point I tried to make with my "look at my country for example" post, that some people simply didnt get. Estonia has extremely strict gun restrictions, yet somehow we still on top of the murderchart(no firearms involved). Which is wierd as hell considering we have basically no organised crime or anything here.  And yes, every person in Switzerland basically owns militaryhardware. And such massacres like in the US will happen with our without strict gunregulations. Just take a look at Norway, strict gunregulations. Somewere Brevik still gets an entire armory and shoots an island full of innocent teenagers.

Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt like it being 100% legal . I tought so aswell when I was younger, keep it as strict as possible, than the society will be safer. Somehow ive kinda reached the conclusion that its mostly not so simple.

[Teeth]

The right to bear arms still exists in the U.S in case revolting against our government becomes an essential and completely ideal subject again.

I really can't picture any realistic scenario in which discontent with the goverment in a liberal democratic country is going to devolve into an army versus populace struggle.

Makes sense. But in that case you guys should demand from your government to allow to purchase newest military technology. You'll need it if you want to defend yourself from your own government, guns and rifles won't help you there.

I very much enjoyed reading your statements throughout this thread Leshma, keep up the good work!

[Leshma]

I very much enjoyed reading your statements throughout this thread Leshma, keep up the good work!

I would say the same about your precious infamy points, but sadly it's not working anymore

[Ninja_Khorin]

Any successful revolt toward the US government can only be done with military backing. Unless you're willing to count on the government not shooting back.

Anyway, I think the real answer here is the lack of equality in the country leading to desperate actions. And in the case of public shootings ease of access to guns + depression.

[Leshma]

Any successful revolt toward the US government can only be done with military backing.

This. If military is willing to help, there's no government that can do anything about it.

Also, most recent revolutions were led by foreign countries. In Yugoslavia, people who led the revolution and presented themselves as students were actually trained for that in foreign countries (probably by CIA). Many of them live in USA, not in Serbia.

I think that military will always support the revolution if majority of the people want things to change. But they will rarely support fake revolutions like those we've seen in last couple of decades.

[Teeth]

Any successful revolt toward the US government can only be done with military backing. Unless you're willing to count on the government not shooting back.

With the current democratic accountability of the government in the U.S. I am willing to count on 'the government' resigning in the case of an uprising against it. Of course legislation like the Patriot Act might be the start of a slippery slope towards becoming a totalitarian state, but I am talking about right now. These bad guy government scenario's here seem a little bit far fetched in countries with a democratic government.

[Tibe]

With the current democratic accountability of the government in the U.S. I am willing to count on 'the government' resigning in the case of an uprising against it. Of course legislation like the Patriot Act might be the start of a slippery slope towards becoming a totalitarian state, but I am talking about right now. These bad guy government scenario's here seem a little bit far fetched in countries with a democratic government.

Russia?

[Ninja_Khorin]

When was Russia democratic again?

[Tibe]

Its in their constitution. The fact that its fakedemocracy already makes it a "bad guy goverment" as Teeth put it.

[Teeth]

Russia?

Yeah Russia is known around the world for its democracy. What I mean with democracies and for which countries I expect my point to be valid are the countries listed as full democracies in the Democracy Index. Russia recently got downgraded to an authoritarian regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Its in their constitution. The fact that its fakedemocracy already makes it a "bad guy goverment" as Teeth put it.

That is the wrong order of things, I am adressing the armed revolt scenarios against the U.S. government, which I find far fetched. My point being that the government in a functioning democracy would resign before it comes to any of that. Russia not being a functioning democracy in the first place does not disprove that point by pretending to be one.

[Ninja_Khorin]

Its in their constitution. The fact that its fakedemocracy already makes it a "bad guy goverment" as Teeth put it.

I think the point Teeth was making was that he thinks it unlikely for democracies to become to evil authoritarian governments.

Fakedemocracy, on the other hand, is historically an improvement for Russia

[Tibe]

Quess you got a point there, fakedemocracy really is its improvement.

Still its not that impossible. Economy takes few more hits and democracy will eventually crumble in some western countries.

(click to show/hide)

I may have derailed the thread a little here 

[Molly]

Frankly this was the point I tried to make with my "look at my country for example" post, that some people simply didnt get. Estonia has extremely strict gun restrictions, yet somehow we still on top of the murderchart(no firearms involved). Which is wierd as hell considering we have basically no organised crime or anything here.  And yes, every person in Switzerland basically owns militaryhardware. And such massacres like in the US will happen with our without strict gunregulations. Just take a look at Sweden, strict gunregulations. Somewere Brevik still gets an entire armory and shoots an island full of innocent teenagers.

Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt like it being 100% legal . I tought so aswell when I was younger, keep it as strict as possible, than the society will be safer. Somehow ive kinda reached the conclusion that its mostly not so simple.

Sweden? Really? Am I the only one who stumbled about it? A guy bombs a city and kills a whole island of young people and you fail to remember the country it was in? It was in Norway. 

And nobody here ever denied that those things CAN happen in countries with strict laws on guns... point is: it's way less likely to happen. And as Kafein already wrote - I can sit down too and google some completely unrelated numbers, post them and think they are a valid argument. I can pull some numbers out of my ass and they would have the same validity. 

[Tibe]

Damn, I may have went full retard there! Ignore me, ive had little sleep and 2 hangovers during this weekend. I know its freaking Norway, but for some reason Sweden popped in my brain.

Holy crap that was retarded. Thanks for pointing that out Benkei, I wont argue anymore cause I fear il make a bigger fool of myself. Dont look at me!

PS: I for one never google for numbers and stuff. Its really your own opinion of the matter that I think is of value when doing an internetdiscussion.