Basically... I claim you are making shit up.
No need to be rude. I may have been mistaken. But, see, I'm not serving the argument that "guns are bad" or "guns are good". I'm fairly neutral either way (of course, I am scared of guns, but that's the point
of them, isn't it? Not so much being killy as being scary.). My presenting arguments is mostly a way of testing what I think I know. Please don't think of me as a part of a "them" or an "us". I hate affiliations. Anyway, I'm not ashamed of expressing uninformed opinions and half-baked data, it's not like my ego was attached to them. I want to find out the truth, not write a bottom line and then just pile up arguments that favor the conclusion that I wish were true. So, if you find my ignorance and my flippancy irritating, I apologize in advance: I really don't mean to offend anyone.
So, testing what I think I know. And what I think I know has taken a serious blow thanks to that Daily Mail article. Seeing Sweden, Canada or Finland ranked so high, countries that are famous for being peaceful and safe, and seeing France being so far from the top when its riots and ghettoes are so often on top of the news, blows a hole in a lot of prejudice I have been holding. As it turns out, it's not the countries that have the most violence in media that have the most of it in Real Life. Maybe I should have expected that. But when you see films like Hot Fuzz, whose entire premise
is "an action movie with cowboy cops in Britain is absurd and therefore funny because nothing exciting ever happens here, and our cops don't have guns anyway", well, you think "it must be true, otherwise the joke falls flat". Now, obviously, I was wrong, and so were they. Unless...
But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.
New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.
But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
So, comparison of all violent crime VS comparison of murder. I think that's important. I mean, when I see Britain ranking over freaking South Africa, that sort of clashes with my media image of South Africa as a huge crime ridden rape camp (I'm being hyperboic). I'm like, "Britain can't possibly be more unsafe than freaking South Africa, now can it?"
So there is also this matter, perception of safety versus real safety. From where I stand, it seems like every shopkeeper in the USA has a shotgun under the counter, and there are neighborhoods where the police is afraid to come in (or perhaps they just don't care). It seems like a scary place. Then, in Britain, even the cops don't have guns, so when I went there on holiday I wasn't scared at all. Even the people there didn't seem so worried about safety.
And as the people of India, the native peoples of america, most of the middle east, and most of Africa can attest to... this really doesn't fucking work that well
a lot ofsome of the time.
And while it is true that armed citizens are not as effective mano-a-mano as trained and professionally equipped soldiers, we've pointed out numerous examples where they have been shown to be effective. I would like you to address them.
Sorry I didn't address everything, I hope it wasn't because I was self-servingly not paying attention. Please don't hesitate to point it out when I do that, it's not a cool thing to do. Still, about calling the kettle black and everything: nobody cares about the matter of logistics in the case of an armed rebellion? I think it's a legitimate concern. I mean, it's one thing to rebel in Afghanistan or Vietnam, it's another to do that in, say the Great American Plains. Where you gonna hide? (I know there's, like, humongous forests and huge mountains and stuff, but a lot of the country is basically a huge plain, right?
I don't know, all you say there is that there have been uprisings. The Tunisians and Egyptians seem to have done fine without any fighting or threatening, as far as I could tell (and I followed those two pretty closely). At least until the leader was driven away. Now I'm not so sure how their revolutions are going along, but AFAIK guns don't play a significant role there. The Indians got rid of the British without firing a shot. The Native Americans getting weapons served only as one more excuse to slaughter them (again, grabbing a knife when the other guy has a bayonet). The citizens of the Colonized World had plenty of weapons, and the will to use them, and lost shamefully and bloodily every single time. The countries that lasted the most without getting invaded were the ones that played their enemies against each other and ran a tight game of diplomacy. Even then, they got protectorated at best, but they were still better off than those that were conquered by blood and iron. Afghanistan resisted the Soviets in the early eighties, but the soviets won, and left a fairly stable communist government that only fell down after the Soviet Union dissolved and stopped sending them aid. A repeat is taking place with the USA: as long as they support the current government, it'll hold. As for the American Revolution, by all accounts, I heard that if the British hadn't been so incompetent they could have won that, and in fact there wouldn't have been cause for a war in the first place. So was it good that the Americans got guns? Yeah, sure, good for them. Is it good that they have them now? I don't know.
Now, how about when it does work out? All those violent crime countries we talked about earlier, their citizens have no guns (except maybe for hunting). Often, their cops have no guns either. As far as I can tell, they don't miss them. In fact, the very idea of having them scares them. I once met this taxi driver who had a license for gun ownership, very rare thing, because he practiced Olympic marksmanship, or whatever it's called. I asked him "Do you keep one on your person?". He said "no way". I said "You're a taxi driver, chances are you're going to get robbed some day." He said "That's okay, I'll just give them whatever I have with me, it's not worth killing a man for that." "But they might kill you." "The law here says you ain't allowed to shoot unless you've been shot at first, so that makes the gun kinda useless. Anyway, I ain't having a dead man on my conscience, that's some grim business right there." And I was like "Suit yourself." I didn't say "It's your funeral", that'd have been rude.
Anyway, seems that attitude is pretty much the norm over there: they'd rather be confronted by higher chances violent crime that ain't likely to end up in homicide, than by rarer but more lethal violent crime. I suppose if you banned guns in the USA right now only criminals would still keep them, while if you allowed them in Europe only criminals would buy
them. So banning or allowing or regulating are really context-sensitive, delicate moves. As far as I can tell, the USA are better off keeping it up the way they do.
Also, your assumption that U.S. populations don't have 'military weapons' is kinda bullshit.
I simply heard that American civilians weren't allowed to own "military-grade weapons". Without knowing what that means, I'd assume it would put them at a disadvantage against a military.
But see, the problem with an armed rebellion where civilians are pitted against the military, is that it's either the hopeless struggle of a minority against the rest of the nation, or a full-blown civil war. I mean, "the State against the People"? How does that even work? Who feeds them, who builds their weapons, sews their clothes, nails their boots, generates their electricity, purifies their water, carries their fuel etc. etc. ? As for the rest of your paragraph, you might as well have talked about microprocessor architecture: I barely understand a word, and wouldn't be able to issue an opinion either way.
And of course, the funny thing is, all deaths caused by either violent crimes or gun safety issues or all of them combined pale before deaths caused by car collisions. Heck, any given year, more people die in the USA because of vehicle collisions than because of terrorist actions or wars or anything violent like that. Maybe alcohol is much more dangerous than guns, after all. But someone tried banning that back in the day, and it doesn't seem to have worked out too well, right? You'd think staying alive would be everyone's top priority, but the existence of sports cars and base jumping and recreational drugs seems to point to the contrary. Maybe having fun is the top priority. Or looking cool. If either or both are true, then I can understand a lot better why people who are used to having guns care so much about keeping them.