Governments change. Ask the Germans. In that case a well armed rather than intimidated civilian resistance could have saved 30MM lives on the eastern front alone. Now lets get back to talking about the 10 people a year you’re concerned about.
This line of thought of deterring governemtns is focusing on the high weight black swan event rather than the more frequent but largely statistically insiginificant occurences.
As far as what’s stopping the use of heavy artillery on people… nothing theoretically, but in the past, firearm ownership has been a successful deterrent. Plus, as I’ve mentioned, in the country we have the lack of police presence that necessitates home defence as well.
Why is commenting on US laws considered classless?? Ppl are still talking about the crusades…how many innocent ppl were killed there?..blake blake blake
Not if getting rid of aids comes at the price of integral freedoms, turns out to be impractical (as Sweep pointed out, guns will still be prevalent in gangs, your wost urban offender), and ends up being a determent to people’s ability to defend themselves.
While we’re using isolated events as a method of setting policy:
Banning cars is not the same as banning guns. Cars are universally useful. Guns are not.
Anyway, your argument is based on the assumption that gun ownership is an “integral freedom”. I know from experience that I can do nothing to convince you otherwise. So, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
If one of the reasons for gunownership in the US is lack of police coverage/response to crime, do you think gunownership will drop in the future when police coverage may be more pervasive?
Here’s the problem, you have a bunch of limp wristed city kids that never spent a day in the country outside of a B&B getaway trying to argue against all the rural necessities of gun ownership based on a few isolated incidences. If you guys want to ban them in cities, go ahead. I mean, it’ll work out as well as your drug and bomb bans, firework and switchblade bans, but hey. Go for it. Just leave the rest of the country out of it. Like I said, there are more guns per capita and far fewer violent crimes per capita in rural areas than in urban areas (as cited above). Guns are used in far fewer violent crimes in rural areas vs urban despite the facts above. So the problem isn’t the guns. It’s obviously you guys (urbanites) and not guns that are the problem. But you keep on ignoring it all you want.
Shame on all of you for turning this into a right to bear arms debate. This is a tradgedy and my heart goes out to all families affected. If it were not guns, it would have been a pipe bomb, homemade explosive, etc. Remember that the Twin Towers came down via box cutter. Terrorists will find a way to make terror one way or another.
Let the gun debate rest. I’ll spend a moment in prayer for all those affected.
I listed several key reasons above their useful… home defence and hunting to be the main two, as well as deterring governments. But since they’re high impact, low frequency events, obviously as a financial professional you’re blind to them.
It is possible that with more police, crime will decline. Hence, people will feel less of a need to own guns. However, why incur the expense of a larger police force? Regulating guns would be far more straightforward.
Police coverage will not increase in rural areas, it’s actually decreased majorly in the past 10 years in my home town as it’s just not economically feasable.
And absolutely less effective in rural areas. Someone breaks into your family’s house in the country knowing police are 15 minutes away. You can’t defend yourself against them without a gun because your’e not male. You lose, family dies. OR…
Please do this. After I took them to a few sessions, everyone I’ve met with anti-gun viewpoints (roommate from Boston and coworkers in NJ) changed their mind on the subject.
I wouldn’t dare to speak for Blake, but I believe I know where he’s coming from. Guns are part of American society, for better or worse. When something like this happens and we hear knee jerk reactions from the international community it pisses us off.
Brits may be disgusted by our savage gun laws, but your nanny state makes us just a queasy. I guess you only like us to use our guns to save your asses in world wars. 'Merica!!!