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.

I don't have a hard stance on gun control (I think civilians with guns comes with both pros and cons) and I usually steer away from heated political discussions but I thought I would play devil's advocate for some of you guys and provide a few images and links a friend happened to post on his FB the other day. Keep in mind I just doing this to add some diversity into this thread and show the "other side of the argument on guns" if you will.













http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/

https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/understanding-case-control-studies-of-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/08/26/americas-gun-violence-problem-in-three-charts/

Just adding something new to the thread. My world view is that you should also see all sides of the argument before making an informed and educated opinion. Statistics have shown that more people accidentally turn their guns on themselves than actually kill criminals in self-defense. However guns are a fundamental individual right in America and is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The question now is, is individual freedom or social order(stability) more important in this situation? My personal stance on gun control (and by extension American politics) is much more complicated, but I can definitely see where both sides are coming from and they both have a point.

Jai. I wouldnt trust the police, if I where american in america, as well, but this is not the topic.^^
By adapting to modern society I meant to fully agree to terms of society contracts, for example law and devided forces. it means you are part of a overall agreement due to social conventions. everyone has its rights and duties. executive parts are restricted to special institutions like the police as well as judgement is restricted to court. If everyone would claim to do that all on its own, it would end in anarchy - which can work under certain circumstances but still is the opposite of society.

Thanks for the research Homeless. Interesting numbers. However at some point people need to recognize that the question: "Should guns be legal" is already answered in of itself. The bill of rights enshrines it as a fundamental right in the constitution. Does anyone know how hard it is to pass an amendment? The last one was in 1992 just to get some perspective. Guns are legal and they will be legal. Any attempt to criminalize gun possession in the US would be marked by a new civil war...and I'm not even slightly joking when I say that. The federal takeover of Oregon should be an indication of this.

everyone has its rights and duties

Completely agreed. All good societies are based on a social contract. And America's social contract between the government and its citizens say Americans can own guns. That's their right. Now Europe is a bit different and I totally understand this. Historically there is no concept of European citizens owning guns...or at least it was never that important. Europeans tend to trust their government and its institutions more so they don't fear the government. The US is traditionally very skeptical of its government which is why guns are seen as an important protection and right. Also I don't think people with guns are like vigilantes who want to dole out justice however they feel like. The police and courts still control everything...guns just add a layer of protection for our country's government.

Edited 1/8/2016 04:01:08

Agreed. We need guns. The people are nothing without a peoples army.

Cata, in response to you asking of facts you can go look at the NRA ranking of homicides in America ( the list May no longer exist ) the official Israeli government website, And EU violence statistics as well as independent studies from any major school in America.btw I find it hilarious people are saying America had the highest homicide rates because of our gun laws. It's higher because we have an extremely high population, not because we don't have enough gun laws. Cata, what rights do you actually have in Austria compared to America or Even Jamaica?. Well, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it basically illegal or at least extremely difficult to own a weapon in Austria?. So you don't have the freedom to bare arms. It's also illegal to pray in Austrian public schools iv heard and in Austria, Sueing someone is so expensive for the average citizen and you are not always given a lawyer if sued. Many if these Facts are out of date but still my point is just because you can vote in an election and you are an official republic doesn't mean you are truly free. Cata if a crazy dictator took over tomorrow and started rolling tanks into your town and began storming your apartment building or home....look around where your sitting and tell what you could use to defend yourself against armed rebels?. My guess is probably nothing that will keep you alive for then 5 seconds at best. It's all and well that your government is giving you the right to vote but there's nothing stopping them but international relations from doing whatever they want. Checks and balances are useless if the people don't have a trump card to keep the men in power from doing there jobs. The best way to crack down on gun violence is to keep attention on illegal sails and keeping guns from Schools, and major gathering places. Also, we need to put guard's at Schools and major theaters

Do Europeans ever really wonder why America only suffered from 4 major rebellions in 200 years and Only fought one civil war? Compared to even younger European countries who triple that. It's partly because the people kept the government in check and doing there jobs. We never had a coup or a dictatorship because our system was fixed so we could successfully overthrow a tyrant if needed but in Europe back in the day, if there was a coup or a dictator took over you were,basically fucked unless there was already an underground movement going on. In America, the second that would have happened, people would have been rushing to there national guard posts and firming militias. What Europeans get wrong about America and guns is they are fed propaganda by liberal media saying we are a bunch of truck driving, shot gun shooting, idiots who can't spell there names and this is all magically because we have less gun laws and allow more freedom of religion. Obviously this isn't true and what Europeans don't understand is that Americans, compared to other nations with less gun laws, actually have very active national guards and militias so we keep up our learning on how to safely use guns and how to defend ourselves. Basically Americans have positive activities along with guns instead of us just sitting around getting drunk and pondering who we gonna shout next

And guns save so many lives it isn't funny, but of course we never talk about that

Basically in societies like France, Austria, Britain Ect. You don't have true freedom. What you have is the rule of the majority. In order to have true freedom, it must apply to everyone whether or not your in the majority doesn't matter. However in those countries, the majority rule and thus will occasionally deny freedoms to people in are in the minority who don't believe the same. In the UK, the majority of citizens are for gun control and making guns illegal. However the minority who want the right and freedom to own firearms are left out in the cold. Now it's true that if you live in a democracy then the majority wins but in issues like basic freedoms it doesn't matter what side your on, everybody should have them. That's why the U.S. constitution is so successful, it's because it outlines in great detail your freedoms that the majority can never take away.


" a true Republic is not where the majority rules; it's where the minority is represented " - CM Mills

^ ahahah this

Basically in societies like France, Austria, Britain Ect. You don't have true freedom. What you have is the rule of the majority.

The minority isnt represented in France, the UK and Austria, you kidding right?

In most democratic nations particularly in Europe and all over the world anyway, for example when presidential/general elections occur you have a vast choice of candidates, most of the time up to 20 candidates, it is not as much as in the US where you have only 2 strong party blocks and 2-3 ghost parties, that never had any chance anyway, this has been this way since the 19th century. At the end you have only 2 choices, I do not deny that politics are also bipolarized in Europe (most of the time liberals/conservative and social parties), but yet every political current is well represented, which is not really the case currently in the US. In France in the last 30 years, 4 different parties (of different political currents) won the general elections, and often you have even politicians from different parties cohabiting in one government, ex: currently the socialists are allied with the Green party, sometimes they were allied with the Far left parties, or sometimes with the Liberals, under President Mitterrand you even had the Socialist with the Conservatives all together in the Government, Mitterrand was a Socialist president and Chirac, the next person that also would become president was his PM at that time, do you experience anything similar in the US? Dont think so.

That's why the U.S. constitution is so successful, it's because it outlines in great detail your freedoms that the majority can never take away.

So successful in what? So according to you if the majority is against something, and the constitution forbids to people to have a chance, because it "can never be taken away" I call it a lack of flexibilty and an excess of authoritarianism, nothing to be proud of. As an example, the French constitution greatly changed over time (actually there was 5 big stages, we are currently under the 5th constitution ratified in 1958 during the Algerian war).

Edited 1/8/2016 12:09:11