Re: Assault weapon bans

.....the gun-loving fucktards that defend that more guns = less deaths are not helping at all.

Are you having fun making this stuff up? Because the statistics do not seem to agree with you.

What statistics? I know for sure the number of violent deaths per year in the country where I live is less than 1 per each 100,000 habitants, and as much as half of them are domestic husband-wive disputes (passional crimes).

In most of Europe you would NEVER fear for your kid to be killed in the streets by a criminal or a psycho.

In the USA, states which have passed "concealed carry law" show a decrease in crime. The reasons are somewhat obvious, Bad Guys act differently if they are worried there might be guns in the pockets of people they face.

Regarding your asserts re Europe, you seem to be trying to somehow generalize those to the USA. But the USA is the exact opposite of a homogeneous culture. I do not particularly believe that say, residents of a suburb in Boston face the same problems, issues and dangers that a resident of a suburb in El Paso does, with the border of Mexico 300 meters away and high levels of illegal activities close by.

But you know best, clearly.

So next time I talk with my friends in El Paso, I will have to relate this story to them of 'un hombre de Internet quien se dice ustedes solamente "gun-loving fucktards" '.

It'll be good for a laugh, right?

I know very well the USA is not a culturally homogenous country, while I also know very well that the parts of the world where kids grow up around guns are those with a higher ration of violent murders per inhabitant.

Its kinda ironic that "US libertarians" despise the Government, which strength resides precisely on the fact that eventually you will be forced to follow its laws at gunpoint, while those same "libertarians" praise those same guns like they are a symbol of individual freedoms. A blatant example of flawed logic.

Freedom resides in individual respecting each other, and that needs to be taught, not enforced. And this is why I wrote "banning is not the answer". If you want to have social peace, you just do not fight violence in society with more violence, you fight it with education towards respect to human life. BTW, did you know that police in Germany only fired 85 bullets in all 2011, and killed only 6 people? That's an 80 million country, so its roughly 1 bullet fired by police per million inhabitants in a whole year. Why? They haven't got the need to fire more, most of the criminals are unarmed because they just do not need the guns. There is a deeper respect for human life, and while Germany is a country where there are 30 firearms per habitant (which is very high for Europe standards), the vast majority of people never sees or touches one in their whole life.

You have a very big problem in the US, I don't deny that: but arming more people will just make it worse. I guess you "libertarians" should know that there is no "good" or "bad" people, no "sane" or "crazy" folks - people is normal until the moment they aren't, your own mind could flip out at a certain point because of external circumstances, and if you have a gun handy and you know how to use its just so much likely that you will end up using it.

I guess that living in a country where the average burglar has a gun and its mentally ready to fight for his life doesn't help at all. Well, maybe there is some work to be done to address THAT, instead of making it easier for criminals to arm themselves.

It can be shown that you have used (falsely) broad generalization after broad generalization to imply causality, where in fact it is not existent.

In the US, there are good safeguards in the form of background checks today. There are also wildly variant state laws. ONE of the US States may be paralleled with a typical small European state, but not the entire USA. I say this because not uncommonly laws on a subject such as firearms do not vary by province or district within a European country.

Anyway, your approach is statist - you appear to believe that some wise person in charge of policy can and should enact gun control for his subject population. You seem to imply that this person/committee//entity would "know best."

Maybe there are not such "wise people." Maybe they are fucking retards. Maybe they are people who somehow in their pea brain figure "It's better that a hundred thousand more burglaries occur, and a hundred thousand women are raped this year, than that we let people have GUNS....and because I am one of the progressive wise elite, I shall thus rule."

I hold the opposite point of view, which is the individual, based on the circumstances he finds himself in, is best capable of making these decisions. In the real world, there is always a mingling of both approaches.

What we know pretty well is that "gun control" isn't about guns, it's about control, period. We know it's about making the state stronger, and the individual weaker. No one would rationally argue with you about your philosophical argue about education instead of banning, etc. Similarly, though, on the road and in the street we need to look at the world as it actually is, and deal with it. In many cases, for many people this involves owning firearms.

No, my position is not statist at all. I don't believe in state, precisely because I don't like armed thugs forcing you to follow their rules at gunpoint.

Let me say it clearly: I do not think guns should be banned so the state has the exclusive monopoly on violence. Never. But saying that more guns = less violence is false, is a dangerous simplification that only leads to more violence - and this is a practical truth and not a philosophical approach.

I think the solution starts in the individual and his choices: In my case, I can guarantee you that I will never live in a country/area where there is a real threat that a random criminal carries a firearm, unless I'm obliged to by force majeure circumstances. I've been grown in countries where most of criminality is made by petty thefts (or white collar criminals, eg. corruption, etc.), and where you feel safe anytime, everywhere. I wouldn't want my kids to grow up in a place where carrying a gun is normal, like some areas in the US: do you know why? Because all this "love" for firearms is precisely what makes the USA one of the most violent countries in the world. You speak about rapists, like there is evil people around every corner... Well, how many rape episodes do you have in your area per year? In the country where I am now is pretty high for Europe standards, 4 rapes per year each 100,000 inhabitants (and like everywhere else the vast majority of rapes are not reported). It's high because its quite a "macho-driven" society. But, as usual, more than half of them are committed by a combination of family member+a relative+a close friend, the kind of guys that doesn't assault you on the street anyway, and that probably the victim wouldn't shot in any case. Summing up: not exactly a lot to fear for the average woman walking down the street by night in Berlin downtown, at least in most of Europe women's enemies are usually inside their own house, or very close to it.

But still, there is this mentality in the US where it seems that you are living in the wild west and you need to defend yourself. Defend your property, defend your family, defend your life. From what, for fucks sake? I think what you need to defend yourself and your society from is that obsession with guns and violence. There is some special olympics shit going on with the so-called "libertarians"... Just check that stupid gif in the post above. They compare the US with Israel, which is occupied territory and a warzone (*facepalm*), and where there are still school shooting episodes, even if rarer than it he US. Why don't those guys compare the US with Italy, Belgium, Spain, Greece.... Where no one is armed in schools, and no school shooting has ever happened? That should be the model, doesn't it?