I agree completely. I hate to say it but these people have been sacrificed for our freedom- though many will say it is BECAUSE of our freedom to have guns that caused this.
What some leftists, moderates and even some conservatives will have you believe is that gun control is the answer. But this couldn't be farther from the truth. These statements and shallow wishes are not based in reality or scientific fact.
Taking a common sense approach often negates any claim made by those seeking to control guns. If they make guns illegal- who will have guns? The Government and Criminals. The government because, duh they make and enforce the law as well as protect us from our enemies overseas, police officers and the like would still continue to carry guns. And why will Criminals have them? Because they already don't respect the law as it is.
Going a step further, we find why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place- What happens when one group of people maintains all the power with no one to stand up against them? They abuse that power and use the blood of the proletariat to grease the gears of their military-industrial complex.
I know it sounds like 'conspiracy theory' but it isn't. Its just human nature. Studies with children and adults have all proven this to be true. The lone-nut gunners would be hard pressed to cause the kind of calamity & let's be honest here- fame that they seek if even 5-10% of the populace was carrying a concealed weapon.
I'm reminded of a story I once heard about an active shooter in a bell tower in Texas that had a bird's nest & caused a large # of deaths, but was largely stopped by armed civilians and authorities responding to the scene. He did the majority of his spree before thsoe armed civilians responded and it would have been far worse if they hadn't. This was a man standing from a sniper's position. These lone-gun nuts don't do this very often- it's always up close and in closed quarters.
Being part of a well armed & educated populace would bring these tragedies to an end.
Honest question, how many guns were in circulation in Australia before the gun laws were passed? The article says clearly that 5% of the world Population has ~50% of the world gun-owners. People like to use Australia as a test case, but if you look at guns like a virus, yes, they were able to stamp out a small village outbreak, but how can those same methods stop a full blown plague? It's far easier to stop something small than it is to stop something this big.
If you take the 3.2M firearm estimate and the 1996 Census data indicating a population of ~18.3M, you end up with around 7 guns per 40 Australians; the American population as of 4 July 2015 was ~320,000,000, and using the 8-year-old firearm data, you'd end up with about 84 guns per 100 Americans. That would put the current American gun per capita rate at ~480% of Australia's at the time of its gun confiscation ("mandatory buyback") program.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you... almost completely.
First, the Second Amendment is talking about a "well regulated militia". The average citizen is hardly that. They are certainly not regulated, barely even experienced most of the time. This isn't 200 years ago where a vast majority of people lived around firearms and even used them for their daily lives (hunting, trapping, etc). Ignorance, poor forethought, and lack of being level-headed is rampant and all horrendous traits to be associated with a tool of lethal force.
Second, yes, we have the right to take up arms against our government to protect us from forms of tyranny... but... quite bluntly, do we exactly need their permission? Governments and dictators are overthrown all the time without a piece of paper giving it's people permission to do so... nor do I believe an abusive and overruling government to simply look at the angry mob out front trying to kill them and go, "Oh, well, this piece of paper says you can, so I guess I tell the tanks to go home." Plus, even if 80% of America was "well armed & educated"... see previous comment about tanks. This isn't 200 years ago where pure manpower can brute force things, especially considering we're America, the country with the highest military spending in the world. We're absurdly out-gunned even if we tried. (This is completely ignoring the fact that full revolutions of governments have happened without having to fire a single shot, e.g. Iceland).
Third, as /u/Triseult pointed out for me, Australia did exactly what you're claiming doesn't work and the situation improved. Of course, different culture, different people... so different things will work for different people. But to utterly dismiss the concept as ineffective is...well, not true. It has the potential to be effective because we've never personally tried it in our culture with our people.
Fourth, we have drivers licenses, hunting licenses, electrical licences, HVAC licenses, beer licenses... ranging from food, to transportation, to services... all with training, certifications, and the ability to revoke them. However, with firearms, a tool expressly designed for one purpose (pumping metal into a living object rapidly and accurately)... there's no license. No required training course. Sure there's one for concealed carry... but basic owning of a firearm there's nothing. And anytime someone attempts to add one or discuss the concept of adding one, people start flailing the Second Amendment around like a permission slip from their parents. This seems absurdly inconsistent and irrational. Always has. This is being said as a person that's fired everything from a .22 to a .44 magnum to a 10mm mag and owns a rifle currently sitting in my closet. I've never been trained with these. I've never been tested to verify I have a basic understanding of the weapon or how to maintain it. Nothing. I can walk down the road to my local Walmart and buy a rifle and maybe... maybe they'll actually run the background check they're supposed to. Half the time they don't (reference: I worked at Walmart)
Do I believe people can have guns? Yes. I think it's completely capable for a people to be armed and it not create situations like these. Do I think we've gone overboard the other direction? Hell yes. Sure, some of the gun control and restrictions that have been put in place are awkward or down-right ineffective, but generally, those that are avid supporters of the Second Amendment wil...
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you... almost completely.
First, the Second Amendment is talking about a "well regulated militia". The average citizen is hardly that. They are certainly not regulated, barely even experienced most of the time. This isn't 200 years ago where a vast majority of people lived around firearms and even used them for their daily lives (hunting, trapping, etc). Ignorance, poor forethought, and lack of being level-headed is rampant and all horrendous traits to be associated with a tool of lethal force.
Second, yes, we have the right to take up arms against our government to protect us from forms of tyranny... but... quite bluntly, do we exactly need their permission? Governments and dictators are overthrown all the time without a piece of paper giving it's people permission to do so... nor do I believe an abusive and overruling government to simply look at the angry mob out front trying to kill them and go, "Oh, well, this piece of paper says you can, so I guess I tell the tanks to go home." Plus, even if 80% of America was "well armed & educated"... see previous comment about tanks. This isn't 200 years ago where pure manpower can brute force things, especially considering we're America, the country with the highest military spending in the world. We're absurdly out-gunned even if we tried. (This is completely ignoring the fact that full revolutions of governments have happened without having to fire a single shot, e.g. Iceland).
Third, as /u/Triseult pointed out for me, Australia did exactly what you're claiming doesn't work and the situation improved. Of course, different culture, different people... so different things will work for different people. But to utterly dismiss the concept as ineffective is...well, not true. It has the potential to be effective because we've never personally tried it in our culture with our people.
Fourth, we have drivers licenses, hunting licenses, electrical licences, HVAC licenses, beer licenses... ranging from food, to transportation, to services... all with training, certifications, and the ability to revoke them. However, with firearms, a tool expressly designed for one purpose (pumping metal into a living object rapidly and accurately)... there's no license. No required training course. Sure there's one for concealed carry... but basic owning of a firearm there's nothing. And anytime someone attempts to add one or discuss the concept of adding one, people start flailing the Second Amendment around like a permission slip from their parents. This seems absurdly inconsistent and irrational. Always has. This is being said as a person that's fired everything from a .22 to a .44 magnum to a 10mm mag and owns a rifle currently sitting in my closet. I've never been trained with these. I've never been tested to verify I have a basic understanding of the weapon or how to maintain it. Nothing. I can walk down the road to my local Walmart and buy a rifle and maybe... maybe they'll actually run the background check they're supposed to. Half the time they don't (reference: I worked at Walmart)
Do I believe people can have guns? Yes. I think it's completely capable for a people to be armed and it not create situations like these. Do I think we've gone overboard the other direction? Hell yes. Sure, some of the gun control and restrictions that have been put in place are awkward or down-right ineffective, but generally, those that are avid supporters of the Second Amendment will not even discuss the topic or entertain the ideas of some kind of restrictions. Why isn't the concealed carry course required for all gun purchases? Why don't you go get a gun licenses? Some federal building that issues licences, does background checks, and maybe even mental health records (that's been an issue in the past handful of shootings). It certainly wouldn't be perfect, no system is... but I believe it'd be a massive improvement over what we have for both parties.
Governments and criminals will have guns, do you have statistics of shootings in such scenarios? A place called Europe has such statistics. When are you going to use your guns against your government? They have been spying and lying to you for a very long time yet nobody has raised against them. So how many more innocent people need to die so you can have the option to raise against your government? Where was the armed civilian that could have stopped this murderer this time? And you claim to be guided and controlled by facts...
As for using guns against the government? Not I, not ever. That wasn't what my point was. But the 2nd Amendment was written in case the PEOPLE had to stand up against an oppressive government. That is why it is so important. I still believe the US's woes can be solved with critical thinking and some gumption- which unfortunately are the 2 things US politicians don't have, but that's our place as citizens to vote the type of people we need into power.
You are right- they are spying and lying to us, and I believe that most people are so wrapped up in themselves and mass media that the very egregious attacks on our rights has been largely ignored and quelled. But I still have hope in my fellow citizens to start paying attention, and more importantly I have faith in humanity as a whole to turn the ship around before it's too late.
Unfortunately our environment is a much more urgent issue that people should be worried about. I'm all for privacy- entirely in fact, but I believe my great-grandchildren being able to play in the sun without a special suit and a breathing apparatus.
I am not really sure what to do with that book. You can take statistics and mold them to suit a lot of narratives, specially in a place that doesn't want to let go their guns. The point of the matter is that those kinds of shootings don't happen in Europe, or as another poster linked, in Australia. Switzerland has a very high ownership of guns and this doesn't happen.
You don't want to let go your guns, fine, but make it very difficult for people to own them, mandatory controls by police to check that the guns are securely stored (that probably goes against some law in USA, but if you want a gun, you should allow for such controls), yearly psychological controls for gun owners. It shouldn't be allowed that an 18 year old with an ID could go to a Walmart and walk out with a gun (and I just came from the UK where you cannot buy knifes in Ikea without ID and they are locked under key, which I find it ridiculous, you cannot buy a nailclipper without ID, or so my stepson has told me).
Guns are deeply ingrained in your culture, and it's understandable that a lot of Americans don't want to even think about letting go their guns, but don't delude yourself, there are tons of statistics showing that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one; examples: 1, 2, 3,...
Thanks for keeping your reply, I shouldn't be thanking you for something that normal, but this is my first controversial exchange in Snapzu and it's refreshing that it's so "civil".
Thank you for making it. Its a point we all need to understand and grasp. We cannot run our country based on how we feel about something- it needs to be guided and controlled with facts. Those preaching gun control are usually pushing a secondary agenda- one that is not in thee best interests of the public at large.
I agree completely. I hate to say it but these people have been sacrificed for our freedom- though many will say it is BECAUSE of our freedom to have guns that caused this.
What some leftists, moderates and even some conservatives will have you believe is that gun control is the answer. But this couldn't be farther from the truth. These statements and shallow wishes are not based in reality or scientific fact.
Taking a common sense approach often negates any claim made by those seeking to control guns. If they make guns illegal- who will have guns? The Government and Criminals. The government because, duh they make and enforce the law as well as protect us from our enemies overseas, police officers and the like would still continue to carry guns. And why will Criminals have them? Because they already don't respect the law as it is. Going a step further, we find why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place- What happens when one group of people maintains all the power with no one to stand up against them? They abuse that power and use the blood of the proletariat to grease the gears of their military-industrial complex.
I know it sounds like 'conspiracy theory' but it isn't. Its just human nature. Studies with children and adults have all proven this to be true. The lone-nut gunners would be hard pressed to cause the kind of calamity & let's be honest here- fame that they seek if even 5-10% of the populace was carrying a concealed weapon.
I'm reminded of a story I once heard about an active shooter in a bell tower in Texas that had a bird's nest & caused a large # of deaths, but was largely stopped by armed civilians and authorities responding to the scene. He did the majority of his spree before thsoe armed civilians responded and it would have been far worse if they hadn't. This was a man standing from a sniper's position. These lone-gun nuts don't do this very often- it's always up close and in closed quarters.
Being part of a well armed & educated populace would bring these tragedies to an end.
And yet meanwhile in Australia...
Honest question, how many guns were in circulation in Australia before the gun laws were passed? The article says clearly that 5% of the world Population has ~50% of the world gun-owners. People like to use Australia as a test case, but if you look at guns like a virus, yes, they were able to stamp out a small village outbreak, but how can those same methods stop a full blown plague? It's far easier to stop something small than it is to stop something this big.
At the time, somewhere around 3.2 million guns were in circulation, indicating that ~1/3 of firearms in stock were confiscated/destroyed. To achieve this in America, around 90 million firearms would have to be seized if the ~270 million firearm estimate is to be believed.
If you take the 3.2M firearm estimate and the 1996 Census data indicating a population of ~18.3M, you end up with around 7 guns per 40 Australians; the American population as of 4 July 2015 was ~320,000,000, and using the 8-year-old firearm data, you'd end up with about 84 guns per 100 Americans. That would put the current American gun per capita rate at ~480% of Australia's at the time of its gun confiscation ("mandatory buyback") program.
Seems like current estimations of guns are at 300 million, according to MAIG and NRA. Trying to get firearms out of the US is a fools errand.
Wow thank you for such an in-depth answer and research!
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you... almost completely.
First, the Second Amendment is talking about a "well regulated militia". The average citizen is hardly that. They are certainly not regulated, barely even experienced most of the time. This isn't 200 years ago where a vast majority of people lived around firearms and even used them for their daily lives (hunting, trapping, etc). Ignorance, poor forethought, and lack of being level-headed is rampant and all horrendous traits to be associated with a tool of lethal force.
Second, yes, we have the right to take up arms against our government to protect us from forms of tyranny... but... quite bluntly, do we exactly need their permission? Governments and dictators are overthrown all the time without a piece of paper giving it's people permission to do so... nor do I believe an abusive and overruling government to simply look at the angry mob out front trying to kill them and go, "Oh, well, this piece of paper says you can, so I guess I tell the tanks to go home." Plus, even if 80% of America was "well armed & educated"... see previous comment about tanks. This isn't 200 years ago where pure manpower can brute force things, especially considering we're America, the country with the highest military spending in the world. We're absurdly out-gunned even if we tried. (This is completely ignoring the fact that full revolutions of governments have happened without having to fire a single shot, e.g. Iceland).
Third, as /u/Triseult pointed out for me, Australia did exactly what you're claiming doesn't work and the situation improved. Of course, different culture, different people... so different things will work for different people. But to utterly dismiss the concept as ineffective is...well, not true. It has the potential to be effective because we've never personally tried it in our culture with our people.
Fourth, we have drivers licenses, hunting licenses, electrical licences, HVAC licenses, beer licenses... ranging from food, to transportation, to services... all with training, certifications, and the ability to revoke them. However, with firearms, a tool expressly designed for one purpose (pumping metal into a living object rapidly and accurately)... there's no license. No required training course. Sure there's one for concealed carry... but basic owning of a firearm there's nothing. And anytime someone attempts to add one or discuss the concept of adding one, people start flailing the Second Amendment around like a permission slip from their parents. This seems absurdly inconsistent and irrational. Always has. This is being said as a person that's fired everything from a .22 to a .44 magnum to a 10mm mag and owns a rifle currently sitting in my closet. I've never been trained with these. I've never been tested to verify I have a basic understanding of the weapon or how to maintain it. Nothing. I can walk down the road to my local Walmart and buy a rifle and maybe... maybe they'll actually run the background check they're supposed to. Half the time they don't (reference: I worked at Walmart)
Do I believe people can have guns? Yes. I think it's completely capable for a people to be armed and it not create situations like these. Do I think we've gone overboard the other direction? Hell yes. Sure, some of the gun control and restrictions that have been put in place are awkward or down-right ineffective, but generally, those that are avid supporters of the Second Amendment wil...
Read FullAs Jeffries said: "It's called an amendment, if you argue you can't change an amendment then you need to go buy a dictionary"
Governments and criminals will have guns, do you have statistics of shootings in such scenarios? A place called Europe has such statistics. When are you going to use your guns against your government? They have been spying and lying to you for a very long time yet nobody has raised against them. So how many more innocent people need to die so you can have the option to raise against your government? Where was the armed civilian that could have stopped this murderer this time? And you claim to be guided and controlled by facts...
This Book- More Guns, Less Crime is what I was talking about.
As for using guns against the government? Not I, not ever. That wasn't what my point was. But the 2nd Amendment was written in case the PEOPLE had to stand up against an oppressive government. That is why it is so important. I still believe the US's woes can be solved with critical thinking and some gumption- which unfortunately are the 2 things US politicians don't have, but that's our place as citizens to vote the type of people we need into power.
You are right- they are spying and lying to us, and I believe that most people are so wrapped up in themselves and mass media that the very egregious attacks on our rights has been largely ignored and quelled. But I still have hope in my fellow citizens to start paying attention, and more importantly I have faith in humanity as a whole to turn the ship around before it's too late.
Unfortunately our environment is a much more urgent issue that people should be worried about. I'm all for privacy- entirely in fact, but I believe my great-grandchildren being able to play in the sun without a special suit and a breathing apparatus.
I am not really sure what to do with that book. You can take statistics and mold them to suit a lot of narratives, specially in a place that doesn't want to let go their guns. The point of the matter is that those kinds of shootings don't happen in Europe, or as another poster linked, in Australia. Switzerland has a very high ownership of guns and this doesn't happen.
You don't want to let go your guns, fine, but make it very difficult for people to own them, mandatory controls by police to check that the guns are securely stored (that probably goes against some law in USA, but if you want a gun, you should allow for such controls), yearly psychological controls for gun owners. It shouldn't be allowed that an 18 year old with an ID could go to a Walmart and walk out with a gun (and I just came from the UK where you cannot buy knifes in Ikea without ID and they are locked under key, which I find it ridiculous, you cannot buy a nailclipper without ID, or so my stepson has told me).
Guns are deeply ingrained in your culture, and it's understandable that a lot of Americans don't want to even think about letting go their guns, but don't delude yourself, there are tons of statistics showing that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one; examples: 1, 2, 3,...
Thanks for keeping your reply, I shouldn't be thanking you for something that normal, but this is my first controversial exchange in Snapzu and it's refreshing that it's so "civil".
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Thank you for making it. Its a point we all need to understand and grasp. We cannot run our country based on how we feel about something- it needs to be guided and controlled with facts. Those preaching gun control are usually pushing a secondary agenda- one that is not in thee best interests of the public at large.
Evidence?