Anyone would think America had
just come out of civil war, such is the urged to remain ready for combat (and even to take on the military!). If I ever get so scared of society that I
seriously see the real need to arm myself in preparation myself to kill someone then I think I'd have to move somewhere else not so hostile and call myself a refugee. In my narrow opinion that's society failing somewhat in one of its fundamental purposes. I'm sure there's a much more intelligent answer to that failure to provide an adequate sense of protection than simply the proliferation of guns- which as we can see if you take a broad view doesn't actually ease that fear at all, except at a local level (people are and feel safer from gun crime in developed countries with better gun control than the USA). But so much of it is down to the perceived threat rather than real threat. America is statistically only a bit more dangerous than the UK (on normal crime levels, rather than shootings), but feels a whole lot more. I don't think a proliferation of guns helps at all with the perception of that threat.
Of the worlds richest countries, why do we lead the pack in the most deaths by firearms per capita (deaths include homicide, suicide, accidents, etc, etc) ?
Is there a tie in being that we also have the most guns per capita of any country in the world?
Just askin', 'cause from simply a logical point of view, there seems to be a correlation here, eh?
These are the pertinent points that no one's really answered. Well I suppose Marcellus did earlier, and I guess that's what it boils down to;
... deal with the consequences...so I'd rather be prepared to deal with them and not restrict my personal freedoms.
I'm actually pretty 'pro gun' by British standards- I used to have a shotgun license and nowadays I sometimes get to go deer stalking with the local land owner. I can have fun with guns. But I can't really see the legitimate civillian need for any 'assault' weapon in todays world- which I'll define for myself as anything designed predominantly for shooting people rather than targets or animals (I'll include many handguns, pump action shot guns, semi automatics and anything holding more than a couple of rounds). A gun for me is a sporting or animal control tool rather than something I pick up in preparation/training to kill someone.
Handguns are fully illegal here in the UK, though there are still some on the black market and they are used in crimes but you're far more likely to hear of a sawn-off double barrelled shotgun. I'm very, very unlikely to be robbed or attacked with any gun though- they're generally saved for serious bank robberies and the drugs underworld.
It's not to say that I wouldn't feel safer with a handgun of my own- I certainly would- I too would be just like John McClane (Die Hard)
if the shit went down. But I know that my more vulnerable partner and children would not live in a safer place overall were I allowed to do so. I'll happily give up any right to that thrill for their safety.
As it is none of my family have ever even seen a real life handgun with the one exception of on the armed police at the airport only. That's good by me.
I'm glad you brought up the thing about the governments T-dub. I'm very anti-conspiracy and logical but I don't think its out of the realm to assume that at some point in our existence our (or another) government will do something to harm its own citizens with the massive military power they have amassed.
It's not out of this realm to assume that, but it is a big stretch to think that guns are the only way of stopping it. Actually I think Tdub looses the debate for the reduced gun control lobby according to Goodwins law. Hitler, the Nazi's and genocide have no real place in this debate. It's hyperbole. There's no modern evidence that guns are needed to control government, and no evidence that guns can prevent corrupt government. Iraqi's were well armed under Saddam Hussein. Did it empower them and weaken his control?
It's disingenous just to look at examples where government has failed to act properly and committed atrocities. Instead look to other fair and effective examples of modern government where a good level of gun control has been beneficial and has reduced the numbers of unnecessary deaths. Sound, adequate gun control isn't some precursor to genocide- it's the normal condition for modern peaceful civilians outside of civil war.
There's a reason that when we talk about ending civil war we talk about the parties "laying down their arms" to bring peace, rather than "taking up arms". Maybe taking up arms to restore peace. But taking up arms to maintain peace? Really? There are far more effective intelligent solutions with less damaging side effects. Look at the positive examples outside of america, and not just cherry pick the genocidal atrocities.
I am unarmed in a country with some of the most stringent gun control. And yet,
I am at far less threat of extermination by my government than all of you in America with all your guns. It hasn't happened to a single person here since 1969. How many have been exterminated in America since then? At least 1'300.
Also, as has been alluded to, guns are fast becoming outdated against modern military weaponry- they're not a sustainable long term solution for offering resistance against the state. Soon enough it will be all star trek style phasers and shields in the hands of the military, and hot lead will be as outdated and about as useful as the spear is now. Better to recognise this and improve control over fair government for the future and build a robust system, rather than focusing on the archaic tools and violent methods of yesteryear.
I think international law and the international criminal courts offer more long term protection against government atrocity in the modern developed world than any small arms I could own.
The amount of ammunition you buy doesn't have any bearing on what you do with them.
It has a big bearing on what you
can do with them though.
Buy 10 rounds and you can still go to the range and shoot them and keep/buy more there to shoot, and another 10 to take home again to defend yourself (or shoot your wife and an arresting policeman or two), but it's more difficult to go out on an impulsive killing rampage. The determined could still plan for it of course, but the impulsive potential is significantly reduced. I don't know what the proportion is, but some lives could no doubt be saved for just a little extra inconvenience for gun owners.
And yet, almost EVERY male citizen in Switzerland is issued an automatic rifle and ammunition.
I've a swiss friend who told me that they stopped giving out ammunition except for select officers, and it's illegal to own private ammo for that type of weapon outside of the shooting range. If they're invaded they make their way to the nearest barracks to get loaded. Sounds almost sensible to me, but it does mean the gun and whole militia is virtually useless until the order is given. Better hope they're not warp speed space invaders.
. (still not saying we should all be owning these weapons, just making a point)
For me I think I like my friends here on FC more than I like talking about this kind of stuff.