I suspect the sources in the op is from fox news or something. They look biased, purposefully taking data which shows how guns help and omitting data which shows where guns don't work. For example, in the third picture, they only show countries with the highest homicide rate, not all countries which have banned guns. In fact, the third picture is an awful representation of the statistics for many reasons: is does not take into account other demographics specific to that country. For example, Switzerland has very little poverty and racial tension and an extremely old tradition of guns which would mean gun crime isn't very common.
In addition, there is a lot more to think about than whether legal guns reduces or increases homicide rates. Does it increase non violent crime? Does it increase illegal drug sales? Or not crime related at all: who gets the profits from gun sales? Is it moral to own a gun?
In the end, I am a pacifist and believe than all guns, explosives etc... should be banned from all countries, civilians, police and military.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Of course guns should be legal!! Everyone has the right to bare arms. Good God, you Europeans scare the shit out of me.


FUN FACT: England has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and there gun violence us higher then Israel, where the government actually encourages you to own firearms for self defense

My opinion is this, The outlawing of guns is very dangerous for the population. People say if you outlaw firearms, gun violence will go down. That's simply not true. If you outlaw guns,the only people your stopping from using guns are the law abiding citizens which by definition don't need to be watched. The bad guys will always end up with weapons whether or not they are outlawed or not. It's the same with Drugs and alcohol. All the years Europe and America waged there war on drugs guess what? The overdosers and irresponsible people still got there weed regardless of what the laws said. Same thing with alcohol. In the 20s in America, Alcohol was outlawed and the use actually skyrocketed. Even the president Harding was involved in a scandal regarding his use of champagne. Something else to worry about is this, your weapons are the only thing truly keeping your freedom safe. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Hussain, And hundreds of others of the world's worst dictators all had one thing in common, at the beginning of there reigns they all outlawed guns. Why? Because they knew that an armed population would rebel and keep them in check and accountable. It's the same today, your weapons guarantee your rights and freedoms. Britain, France, And many other nations all have strict gun laws yet there gun violence is higher then Israel which has basically no gun laws. The main argument for people who want to outlaw guns is it's for your " safety " but let me Ask you this.....are you willing to trade your freedom for your supposed " safety "?

In the end, I am a pacifist and believe than all guns, explosives etc... should be banned from all countries, civilians, police and military.

Pacifists are just another name for utopian hippies. You still think we can end war too lol?

in looking for a source, I found the middle picture at this site from the group called "Open Carry Texas": https://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/ft-worth-pd-willing-to-violate-your-right-to-carry/

They claim the graphic is supported by the date is backed up by the Bureau of Justice Statistics page (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=428), but after around 30 minutes of searching, I gave up.

First statistic is not conclusive
Second statistic has me thinking "So what?"
Third statistic is very misleading.

That's what I got from it.

Id like to give a simple answer to the opening question, this thread is named of - No! but, what exactly do you mean with legal? especially legal for whom? if you mean that civilians should be armed? definately not. those ancient times are long over. some people should finally start to evolve and rethink their understandings of society.
Anyways, I have a counter question: do guns, when they are available for civilians, prevent homicide? not to mention if it may rather increases opportunities for homicide. does a gun ever saved a life? (what a ridiculous question =D)
the most retarded thing about this topic is that so many people really believe that guns are good for protection and may save lifes.

People say if you outlaw firearms, gun violence will go down. That's simply not true.

any evidence for this fun fact?

If you outlaw guns,the only people your stopping from using guns are the law abiding citizens which by definition don't need to be watched. The bad guys will always end up with weapons whether or not they are outlawed or not.

first of all, it isnt enough to outlaw guns, you rather need to massively restrict access to guns. and who distinguishes the good from the bad guys? the entire idea that there is good and evil is for children or fools. the only difference between good and evil is circumstance. and guns provide much more devestating opportunities.

Conservative, the last two third of your post made me laugh and despair at the same time ...

Edited 1/8/2016 02:26:52

Can Europeans please stop telling America what our laws should be? This is tantamount to cultural imperialism. America is not Europe. American laws are not based on modern European laws. Americans (for the most part) have never wanted to be Europe (that is the founding principal of our inception). This is no disrespect to Europe, European nations, or European laws. Its just that our countries have vastly different historical narratives leading to our modern societies and frankly European political philosophy and cultural norms are affronts to traditional American values. I have tremendous respect for Europe, but they cannot dictate how American law should or should not be.

The second amendment enshrines the right to gun-ownership for all citizens. It places no limits on the types and amount of firearms and nor should the federal statute have the right to regulate firearms. That being said I think state government need to step up their regulation in terms of background checks.

First statistic is not conclusive
Second statistic has me thinking "So what?"
Third statistic is very misleading.

Can you explain what you mean? Why did you not care about the information in the second statistic. If these numbers are all true...then at the least they provide sizable evidence that the presence of guns causes less damage than the absence.

does a gun ever saved a life?

Many times in fact. It usually requires somebody with a gun to stop someone else with a gun. Otherwise the first person can shoot as many people as they like and no-one would have the ability to stop them.

the entire idea that there is good and evil is for children or fools

So if morality is irrelevant does that mean I can shoot you for disagreeing with me? After all, those silly ethical distinctions are for fools!

In seriousness, nihilism has no place in a moral debate. If you don't even believe there's a right or wrong to begin with what point could you possibly have in this argument?

some people should finally start to evolve and rethink their understandings of society.

So anyone who thinks differently than you is "unevolved"? Get off your arrogant high horse and come back when you've learned the world doesn't revolve around your specific viewpoint.

Edited 1/8/2016 01:23:26

Jai, could you possibly clarify to whom the first part of your response was adressed to? referring to TTIP or CETA, you have been somehow misleaded.

My opinion is this, The outlawing of guns is very dangerous for the population. People say if you outlaw firearms, gun violence will go down. That's simply not true. If you outlaw guns,the only people your stopping from using guns are the law abiding citizens which by definition don't need to be watched. The bad guys will always end up with weapons whether or not they are outlawed or not. It's the same with Drugs and alcohol. All the years Europe and America waged there war on drugs guess what? The overdosers and irresponsible people still got there weed regardless of what the laws said. Same thing with alcohol. In the 20s in America, Alcohol was outlawed and the use actually skyrocketed. Even the president Harding was involved in a scandal regarding his use of champagne. Something else to worry about is this, your weapons are the only thing truly keeping your freedom safe. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Hussain, And hundreds of others of the world's worst dictators all had one thing in common, at the beginning of there reigns they all outlawed guns. Why? Because they knew that an armed population would rebel and keep them in check and accountable. It's the same today, your weapons guarantee your rights and freedoms. Britain, France, And many other nations all have strict gun laws yet there gun violence is higher then Israel which has basically no gun laws. The main argument for people who want to outlaw guns is it's for your " safety " but let me Ask you this.....are you willing to trade your freedom for your supposed " safety "?

Thats some interesting facts you mention here. Could you come with proof?
The last part of your essay is interesting. You say guns gurantee our rights and our freedom. I will tell you something: I live in Austria (a beautiful country btw), I have never held a gun in my life, nor do I know anyone who owns a firearm, and I still have my freedom, and my rights. Its follish to believe someting only works in a certain way, if you see that other people found a way better solution.

It usually requires somebody with a gun to stop someone else with a gun. Otherwise the first person can shoot as many people as they like and no-one would have the ability to stop them.

only until they run out of ammunition....
The gun doesnt save lifes it ends lifes, or at least harms people. it really is that easy. its not like you can heal cancer with a gun, although you may shoot it out of the body, like in this movie: adam's apples.

So if morality is irrelevant does that mean I can shoot you for disagreeing with me? After all, those silly ethical distinctions are for fools!

So anyone who thinks differently than you is "unevolved"? Get off your arrogant high horse and come back when you've learned the world doesn't revolve around your specific viewpoint.

sorry 'missed the connection to what I said. let me give you at least a simple advice from my high horse: close your eyes. take some deep breathes. make sure you breath into your stomach and forget about all the hatred. maybe that helps you to avoid putting quotes out of context to make it fit with your kinky views. =D

Edited 1/8/2016 01:40:05

kinky views

That's hawt.

No! but, what exactly do you mean with legal? especially legal for whom? if you mean that civials should be armed? definately not. those ancient times are long over. some people should finally start to evolve and rethink their understandings of society.

Ranek the first part of what I earlier wrote is in reference to what you wrote. Why is the notion of citizens owning guns "ancient". Its a fundamental right of our society and America has no desire to "rethink our understanding of society". We have no need to "evolve" because the creation of the US constitution and the bill of rights was at its time the pinnacle of human achievement in democracy and freedom. The right to own a gun is a fundamental part of WHO WE ARE as a people, a nation, and a civilization. We are not barbarians for owning guns...and the propagation of this narrative is again cultural imperialism that always reeks out of Europe (the idea being that for the last 2000 years of history Europe has sought to extend its hegemonic influence throughout the world and bring barbarian people under enlightenment). Not everything the west does or teaches is perfect and ideal. That's all I meant to say. Europe has its rules and laws and culture and America has its own. Let's agree with that difference. Guns aren't going anywhere in America.

I believe that guns should be limited to a mere concealed pistol for safety at the maximum, and not be allowed in locations like universities.

Here are few items that support that having lots of guns available is an issue
1. 75% of all shootings are accidental yep, you read that right.
2. Semiautos and other guns with similar functionality have never been used in a self-defense scenario
3. Police state that having cross-fire increases the difficulty of making a proper move
4. People are afraid to speak out against racists and others due to the threat of being shot.
5. A pistol works perfectly fine in the case of actually needing to shoot someone, given that they have proper training(which most lack)

If you're afraid to talk because there's a racist around threatening you, sounds like you need to


www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcwD1T7ixp0

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was established in 1791. It's pretty outdated now as we live in the 21st century.

Traditionalism in American families is slowly dying, so it's only a matter of time before the public will support an amendment to the right to keep and bear arms.

Jai, thanks for clarification. pls let me assure you that I havent referred on the USA. Furthermore this isnt about your culture or europe teaching the USA. I only referred on the main topic. By 'evolve and rethink the understanding of society' I meant nothing else than adapting to modern soceity, where the police takes care of safety and preventing crime.

EDIT: you woulnt need a gun to stop someone with a gun, if there wouldnt be any guns in involved in a homicidal or relevant situation.

Edited 1/8/2016 02:43:54

where the police takes care of safety and preventing crime.

Most minorities in the US already don't trust the police. There's a growing number of right-wing conservatives who view the police as an extension of the federal government and state tyranny. Too many people don't trust policemen, so I doubt that Americans will relinquish their guns permanently to a police state.

Ranek I appreciate the clarification of your point. I apologize if I didn't understand the context of what you were speaking about. But I would like your opinion on what you mean "adapting to modern society". This is pretty vague by itself. Does adapting to modern society mean giving up all our old values, customs, traditions, and policies of government?? Because that sounds more like revolution than change.

The only revolution will be the peoples revolution against the rich.