What's your opinion of gun control?

[TheButterZone]

Even though I don't live in the US. I do think there should be some gun control over there.
It's not a hobby anymore, everyone can own a gun and everyone has easy access to it, it's just way too dangerous

The right to self-defense is infringed to oblivion for law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober people in the US, and you still say that BULLSHIT?!

[1714207994]

1714207994

[1714207994]

1714207994

[1714207994]

1714207994

[1714207994]

1714207994

[TECSHARE]

Ok I'll try to be organized:

-Yes the matter is different. I claim that guns makes the society more violent. You answer me that it allows people to defend themselves from government. Both statement can be true even if one is in favor of gun control and the other is against. I think the first one is more important but that's just a matter of preference.

-Do you think that owning guns make your government under control? Then answer my question, how many wars did the USA start? And how many people did the USA kill? If your government is "under control" then... WTF is a government out of control?

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly?

I did, this is why I say I'm not sure I understand the statistic well... I just try to discuss with you you know? For the stats... Well sorry but I think you read it on the wrong direction. If I listen to what you say, Iceland is the most dangerous place in the world (by far) and India the safest? Look EVERYWHERE else on the internet and you'll see it's the contrary.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangerous
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.html
So I'd say you're the one not understanding your stats. You're really stupid aren't you? ^^
Bring some common sense dude.

For the last part... I didn't take the time to read what a dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone recommended me.

Yes, please do be more organized, I am tired of cleaning up your poorly constructed quotes. Stop being so lazy. I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own. Nope, we are still having the same debate, they are not separate issues. You have not proven that "guns makes society more violent", you simply made that claim. Anyone can make a claim. I can claim that your brain is the size of a peanut. Does me making that claim make it a fact? Furthermore there is evidence to demonstrate USAs violent crime rate in areas with high gun ownership is lower than many countries who ban gun ownership by civilians.

"just a matter of preference"

This is also known as YOUR OPINION.

You speak about your home country as if it is a utopia, but does your country have over 300 million people of many different races and cultures that may clash with each other? Do you share a border with one of the most dangerous countries on Earth? No? Then you don't have any right to compare the two nations as if they have the same security requirements, because they don't.

-Do you think that owning guns make your government under control? Then answer my question, how many wars did the USA start? And how many people did the USA kill? If your government is "under control" then... WTF is a government out of control?

I never used this language, this is completely your fabrication. The right to own firearms was meant as a protection for the citizens from the government. Guns don't give us "control" over our fascist infiltrated government starting wars for bankers and corporate interests, and this is not a claim I ever made. It was a good attempt at completely misrepresenting my point and twisting it into something that serves your argument. Fortunately logic dictates I don't need to defend statements YOU made, only my own.

I did, this is why I say I'm not sure I understand the statistic well... I just try to discuss with you you know? For the stats... Well sorry but I think you read it on the wrong direction. If I listen to what you say, Iceland is the most dangerous place in the world (by far) and India the safest? Look EVERYWHERE else on the internet and you'll see it's the contrary.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangerous
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.html
So I'd say you're the one not understanding your stats. You're really stupid aren't you? ^^
Bring some common sense dude.

For the last part... I didn't take the time to read what a dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone recommended me.

You clearly don't understand the statistics at all. You made the claim:

My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years.

Ignoring your incomprehensible mangling of the English language, you appear to be claiming the whole of Europe has lower crime rates than the USA. I responded with statistical evidence that the USA in fact has LOWER overall crime rates than most of Europe where guns are banned, because that was the claim you made.

Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

The reason places like Yemen and India are higher on the list is because NO ONE IS REPORTING CRIME TO THE POLICE. It is kind of difficult to collect unreported crime statistics now is it not? Tell me again who is the "dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone". It even explains this at the top of the list, not that you bothered to read it.

As far as your links to "the safest places in the world", now when I prove that the crime rates are not higher in the USA suddenly now your standard is "the safest" places in the world? Move those goal posts much in between purposely misinterpreting statistics?

Let's put your moving goal posts aside for a minute and examine your argument about the safest nations in the world. If the presence of firearms create violence automatically, why is Switzerland at the bottom of this list of most dangerous countries, with the USA being roughly in the middle? By your logic shouldn't both of those nations be near the top of that list as they have a high percentage of firearm ownership?

http://www.atlasandboots.com/most-dangerous-countries-in-the-world-ranked/



I also noticed you continue to make several fallacious statements in every reply. I will start listing them so you can educate yourself on how actual logic works.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
 

[Spendulus]

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported.

Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^

are you okay? I thought it was pretty clearly implied that the actual number of crimes is much higher than the ones shown in the statistics. 'not reported' means not included in the statistics, hence giving the pretense that the crime rate is lower, when in reality, that is untrue.

you also need to take into account that with larger countries comes a larger population, and hence a larger number of people willing to commit crimes. mere statistics can only say so much, your arguments are too narrow minded.

Yes but you're saying that crimes are not reported in shitty countries... Which already have incredile high crime rates... So they have even higher crime rates from what you explained.

You also need to take into account that the crime rate of the stats is per 1000 habitants, so that it doesn't matter the size of the country.

In case you didn't understand, TECSHare's stats are misleading because it gives the impression that high crime rates are in Iceland and Europe whereas it's a classification so the top countries are the one with the lower crime rate, not the higher.

Just look at any classification of safest countries, Europeans countries are number one

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

[TECSHARE]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

The only reason this is not already happening in the USA is because we have the right to own guns. This kind of shit would be put down pretty quick in the vast majority of places within the US. You can pretend you live in utopia all you like, but when you look out your window you will still see burning cars and smoke as these riots turn into civil war.

[mOgliE]

Well after a good night of sleep I came back here and... I'm rather amazed.

Added to your globaly incredibly rudeness, some bad faith is leaking from your speach TECShare 

-Sorry again you're not able to think, but "guns make society violent" and "guns allow citizen to protect themselves from their government" are different claims so it's a different debate. If you're not able to understand that... Well just stop answering xD

-Of course it's a claim! I claim that gun control makes society less violent and that Europe is much safer than the USA!!! What do I have to support that claim? Well every stats available on the internet including the ones you showed that you clearly don't understand as you confuse the order of classification but are not even able to bring some common sense here... Doesn't bother you in any way that you're claiming Iceland to be the most dangerous country in the world while every other study in the world places it on the top three of safest countries? Are you so stupid you can't even see that?
http://lifestyle9.org/top-10-safest-countries-to-live-in-the-world/
http://www.valuepenguin.com/2015/07/safest-countries-world
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangerous
http://travel.amerikanki.com/most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.html

Incredible no? The whole internet says THE EXACT CONTRARY of what you're saying! Could it be that you're wrong?

Seem like you think guns = safety. Incredible that you've got the highest murder rate of the civilized world meh?


Well I'm a bit tired of your bad faith. Keep your guns and your 20 mass shootings per year (not exagerating, 200 mass shootings between 2005 and 2015) and I'll keep my stupid/useless/weak/horrible Europe with gun control and our 98 mass shooting since 1800 with a population twice yours.

[mOgliE]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event 

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA 

[TheButterZone]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event  

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA  

You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences.

[mOgliE]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event  

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA  

You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences.

The simple fact that you need resource deputies show that there is something wrong with your country man Oo
Thanks for reminding me that, I forgot how incredible it is that you actually need armed people in your school to protect your children xD

Never thought that without guns there wouldn't have been a mass murderer in the first place? At least that's the case in Europe...

[BADecker]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event  

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA  

You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences.

The simple fact that you need resource deputies show that there is something wrong with your country man Oo
Thanks for reminding me that, I forgot how incredible it is that you actually need armed people in your school to protect your children xD

Never thought that without guns there wouldn't have been a mass murderer in the first place? At least that's the case in Europe...

Yeah, they got you. Without gun freedom in America, they would have you in strait-jackets, too.

[TheButterZone]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event  

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA  

You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences.

The simple fact that you need resource deputies show that there is something wrong with your country man Oo
Thanks for reminding me that, I forgot how incredible it is that you actually need armed people in your school to protect your children xD

Never thought that without guns there wouldn't have been a mass murderer in the first place? At least that's the case in Europe...

Another Holocaust/democide (prerequisite: gun control) denier, I see. /ignore

[mOgliE]

Okay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322576.0

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event  

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA  

You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences.

The simple fact that you need resource deputies show that there is something wrong with your country man Oo
Thanks for reminding me that, I forgot how incredible it is that you actually need armed people in your school to protect your children xD

Never thought that without guns there wouldn't have been a mass murderer in the first place? At least that's the case in Europe...

Another Holocaust/democide (prerequisite: gun control) denier, I see. /ignore

That's not an answer. I don't see the link between Holocausts and gun control...

[xuan87]

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

[mOgliE]

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

I agree. And imagine you get robbed: the guy has a gun, so what? You're going to pull out your gun too?

and sorry about the argument "bad guys always have a gun" well... No... With good gun control you gonna see so much less armed robbery!

[BADecker]

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

I agree. And imagine you get robbed: the guy has a gun, so what? You're going to pull out your gun too?

and sorry about the argument "bad guys always have a gun" well... No... With good gun control you gonna see so much less armed robbery!

How are you going to force the guns out of the hands of the bad guys? You are going to use guns, right?

I suppose a mob of unarmed cops could rush a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of the cops might get killed. But they finally could wrestle the gun away from him.

If the cops are armed... well just look at all the police brutality in America alone. Google it... "police brutality" and see how many millions of hits you get. They can't all be criminals posting this stuff. So, if the police have guns, and nobody else has guns, the bad guys still have guns.

With all the guns around, and with all the knowledge about how to make guns, you will never disarm the world completely. The best bet is to arm us all so that we can protect ourselves from everyone, including the bad cops.

[mOgliE]

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

I agree. And imagine you get robbed: the guy has a gun, so what? You're going to pull out your gun too?

and sorry about the argument "bad guys always have a gun" well... No... With good gun control you gonna see so much less armed robbery!

How are you going to force the guns out of the hands of the bad guys? You are going to use guns, right?

I suppose a mob of unarmed cops could rush a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of the cops might get killed. But they finally could wrestle the gun away from him.

If the cops are armed... well just look at all the police brutality in America alone. Google it... "police brutality" and see how many millions of hits you get. They can't all be criminals posting this stuff. So, if the police have guns, and nobody else has guns, the bad guys still have guns.

With all the guns around, and with all the knowledge about how to make guns, you will never disarm the world completely. The best bet is to arm us all so that we can protect ourselves from everyone, including the bad cops.

Of course cops and soldiers must be armed dude...

And yes I see all the cops brutality in America... And I think (think, just an opinion here) that it's also deeply linked to gun freedom. Cops are more violent cause they feel less safer which I understand. How can a cop feel safe doing his job when every citizen might have a glock...

[BADecker]

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

I agree. And imagine you get robbed: the guy has a gun, so what? You're going to pull out your gun too?

and sorry about the argument "bad guys always have a gun" well... No... With good gun control you gonna see so much less armed robbery!

How are you going to force the guns out of the hands of the bad guys? You are going to use guns, right?

I suppose a mob of unarmed cops could rush a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of the cops might get killed. But they finally could wrestle the gun away from him.

If the cops are armed... well just look at all the police brutality in America alone. Google it... "police brutality" and see how many millions of hits you get. They can't all be criminals posting this stuff. So, if the police have guns, and nobody else has guns, the bad guys still have guns.

With all the guns around, and with all the knowledge about how to make guns, you will never disarm the world completely. The best bet is to arm us all so that we can protect ourselves from everyone, including the bad cops.

Of course cops and soldiers must be armed dude...

And yes I see all the cops brutality in America... And I think (think, just an opinion here) that it's also deeply linked to gun freedom. Cops are more violent cause they feel less safer which I understand. How can a cop feel safe doing his job when every citizen might have a glock...

Why do cops and soldiers need to be armed with guns? I thought the whole idea was to feel safer. I feel a lot safer when we don't have anyone running around with guns.

All you need to do is look at what Stalin and Mao and Hitler did to their own people who didn't have guns. And what about Pol Pot and many others?

I would certainly rather have a fighting chance than not.

[mOgliE]

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

I agree. And imagine you get robbed: the guy has a gun, so what? You're going to pull out your gun too?

and sorry about the argument "bad guys always have a gun" well... No... With good gun control you gonna see so much less armed robbery!

How are you going to force the guns out of the hands of the bad guys? You are going to use guns, right?

I suppose a mob of unarmed cops could rush a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of the cops might get killed. But they finally could wrestle the gun away from him.

If the cops are armed... well just look at all the police brutality in America alone. Google it... "police brutality" and see how many millions of hits you get. They can't all be criminals posting this stuff. So, if the police have guns, and nobody else has guns, the bad guys still have guns.

With all the guns around, and with all the knowledge about how to make guns, you will never disarm the world completely. The best bet is to arm us all so that we can protect ourselves from everyone, including the bad cops.

Of course cops and soldiers must be armed dude...

And yes I see all the cops brutality in America... And I think (think, just an opinion here) that it's also deeply linked to gun freedom. Cops are more violent cause they feel less safer which I understand. How can a cop feel safe doing his job when every citizen might have a glock...

Why do cops and soldiers need to be armed with guns? I thought the whole idea was to feel safer. I feel a lot safer when we don't have anyone running around with guns.

All you need to do is look at what Stalin and Mao and Hitler did to their own people who didn't have guns. And what about Pol Pot and many others?

I would certainly rather have a fighting chance than not.

Well if soldiers and cops don't have guns... They're useless, a soldier without a weapon has no reason to be called a soldier. Just get them out.

There might also be a middle between "everyone can  buy an AK-47" and "no one can be armed, not even soldiers"...

[tvbcof]

Well if soldiers and cops don't have guns... They're useless, a soldier without a weapon has no reason to be called a soldier. Just get them out.

There might also be a middle between "everyone can  buy an AK-47" and "no one can be armed, not even soldiers"...

When policy-makers can rely exclusively on a monopolization of force, the policies they make tend to leverage this advantage eventually.  One need not be a raving paranoid to look with discomfort at a society which is rapidly expanding a heavily armed domestic paramilitary while simultaneously dis-arming civilians as fast as possible in spite of the social strain that the project entails and the statistically insignificant nature of problems that the action claims to address.

I, for one, do not believe in the 'American exceptionalism' and certainly not that such a thing gives us a magic shield against the types of misfortune that have befallen the Soviets under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pot, etc.  For my part, if I had to choose between a civil war and a totalitarian dictatorship, I would consider the first to be the lesser of two evils and a tunnel which has light at it's end.  A realistic balance of power seems to me the best way to avoid having to make that choice at all.

And in a more here-and-now sort of a way, communities like mine are kept remarkably peaceful by citizens having the ability to protect themselves.  The minimal levels of state sponsored law enforcement serve a back-office function of dealing with criminals when time is not a factor while the front-line duties are handled quite effectively by law abiding citizens.  It is very efficient and works quite well.

[mOgliE]

Well if soldiers and cops don't have guns... They're useless, a soldier without a weapon has no reason to be called a soldier. Just get them out.

There might also be a middle between "everyone can  buy an AK-47" and "no one can be armed, not even soldiers"...

When policy-makers can rely exclusively on a monopolization of force, the policies they make tend to leverage this advantage eventually.  One need not be a raving paranoid to look with discomfort at a society which is rapidly expanding a heavily armed domestic paramilitary while simultaneously dis-arming civilians as fast as possible in spite of the social strain that the project entails and the statistically insignificant nature of problems that the action claims to address.

I, for one, do not believe in the 'American exceptionalism' and certainly not that such a thing gives us a magic shield against the types of misfortune that have befallen the Soviets under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pot, etc.  For my part, if I had to choose between a civil war and a totalitarian dictatorship, I would consider the first to be the lesser of two evils and a tunnel which has light at it's end.  A realistic balance of power seems to me the best way to avoid having to make that choice at all.

And in a more here-and-now sort of a way, communities like mine are kept remarkably peaceful by citizens having the ability to protect themselves.  The minimal levels of state sponsored law enforcement serve a back-office function of dealing with criminals when time is not a factor while the front-line duties are handled quite effectively by law abiding citizens.  It is very efficient and works quite well.

I understand and respect your point of view. But you seem to forget one thing: no matter the example you take, shall it be Hitler, Staline or Polpot, the population had the chance to change things before it became a dictatorship.

Police officers and soldiers are part of the population too. One can not simply take over a country without the support of the population. Germany and Sovietic Russia or Mao China were horrible yes, but the three leader had a lot of support from their more or less brainwashed population.

So guns wouldn't matter here, if people had guns, they wouldn't have turned them against their government.

You see, I perticulary understand what you're saying as France is becoming closer and closer to a dictatorship.... First minister announced that the State of Emergency, giving much more power to the government (a bit like the Patriot Act which is something unbelievable here in France) will go on for a few month more, whereas the ending date was February.
But the fact is that... Even if we all had gun it wouldn't change a thing! Because most of people agree with the State of Emergency! So they wouldn't fight the government but support it!

As you said, an armed population in case of a huge governmental crisis leads to civil war. I prefer to believe in the democratic principles, saying that if more than half of the population wants it, they have the right to do it.

[BADecker]

Why do cops and soldiers need to be armed with guns? I thought the whole idea was to feel safer. I feel a lot safer when we don't have anyone running around with guns.

All you need to do is look at what Stalin and Mao and Hitler did to their own people who didn't have guns. And what about Pol Pot and many others?

I would certainly rather have a fighting chance than not.

Well if soldiers and cops don't have guns... They're useless, a soldier without a weapon has no reason to be called a soldier. Just get them out.

There might also be a middle between "everyone can  buy an AK-47" and "no one can be armed, not even soldiers"...

Well, now. You're finally starting to see. What's the difference between a soldier or a cop, and a civilian? Almost nothing. About all it is, is some training and some guns.

Did you ever look at the word "militia?" What word does it look like? "Military" of course. And in the beginning of the United States, the militia was made up of the people, and the military was made up of the militia. It is still like this in Switzerland somewhat. In America, somebody, over the years, talked the people into being wimps, and letting someone else protect them.

By Constitution we are not supposed to have a military in times of peace. Guess what we have? A military. Since we have a military, we are not at peace. If we need to be at war, let us all arm and be at war. If we did this, we wouldn't need cops, and the formal military could go to other countries, while the people back home would be the militia. That's the way it is supposed to be in America.

There are a bunch of pussies who don't want to stand up for themselves, and a bunch of con-artists sweet-talking them into weakness.

You better be glad America is as strong as it is, and that it has gun freedom. American gun freedom and the strength are the only two things keeping the world somewhat free. Why? Because foreign governments are afraid to take away too much freedom because of what their citizen-slaves-to-be will learn from America about freedom.