What's your opinion of gun control?

[Spendulus]

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.

You've gutted logic to advance opinion.

Last night I had dinner in a restaurant with perhaps 200-300 people.  There was an armed security guard, likely ex marine or special forces.  There were no doubt four or five people in that restaurant with concealed carry weapons.  It was a nice place.  A place you'd bring your family to.

That's the USA in a nutshell.

[1714218254]

1714218254

[1714218254]

1714218254

[1714218254]

1714218254

[1714218254]

1714218254

[1714218254]

1714218254

[1714218254]

1714218254

[jokinfol]

im from britain so i find the amount of guns in america shocking, i think it needs to be reigned it because ive read about several high school massacres involving guns in america and we are yet to have one. its just my opinion but the rest of the world manage to 'protect their property' without such dangerous weapons

[TheButterZone]

im from britain so i find the amount of guns in america shocking, i think it needs to be reigned it because ive read about several high school massacres involving guns in america and we are yet to have one. its just my opinion but the rest of the world manage to 'protect their property' without such dangerous weapons

Your revisionist history to defend the indefensible violation of human rights, resulting in 3.31001528944831x more violent crimes per capita in the UK than the US (sources: Eurostat and the FBI's UCR, 2011), is duly noted. /ignore

[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.

You've gutted logic to advance opinion.

Last night I had dinner in a restaurant with perhaps 200-300 people.  There was an armed security guard, likely ex marine or special forces.  There were no doubt four or five people in that restaurant with concealed carry weapons.  It was a nice place.  A place you'd bring your family to.

That's the USA in a nutshell.

I don't see the link with what you quoted...

But glad you went in a restaurant. And glad nothing happenned in your restaurant.

But I wouldn't bring my family somewhere 5 people have concealed weapons... Totally crazy country xD
(crazy for a European, don't get it wrong here)

Your revisionist history to defend the indefensible violation of human rights resulting in 3.31001528944831x more violent crimes in the UK than the US, is duly noted.

Nope. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

UK got less violent crimes than USA. Don't know where your number came from.

[Spendulus]

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.

You've gutted logic to advance opinion.

Last night I had dinner in a restaurant with perhaps 200-300 people.  There was an armed security guard, likely ex marine or special forces.  There were no doubt four or five people in that restaurant with concealed carry weapons.  It was a nice place.  A place you'd bring your family to.

That's the USA in a nutshell.

I don't see the link with what you quoted...

But glad you went in a restaurant. And glad nothing happenned in your restaurant.

But I wouldn't bring my family somewhere 5 people have concealed weapons... Totally crazy country xD
(crazy for a European, don't get it wrong here)

Your revisionist history to defend the indefensible violation of human rights resulting in 3.31001528944831x more violent crimes in the UK than the US, is duly noted.

Nope. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

UK got less violent crimes than USA. Don't know where your number came from.

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.   

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous. 

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

[TheButterZone]

Gah, why can't stalkers quote me properly...

[TECSHARE]

Gah, why can't stalkers quote me properly...

He is too lazy to learn how logic or even how the English language works, why would he quote properly?

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  

I am sorry you find facts rude. Please do quote my rude comments. I will quote your rude comments and ad-hominem attacks for reference.

Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD

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.

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

Please feel free to list my personal attacks against yourself. Personal attacks are another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem


If I am stating anything in bad faith, please do quote exactly the statement you are referring to and tell me why it is in bad faith, otherwise you are just slinging empty accusations. You also keep making statements that you claim I made based on YOUR OWN inept interpretations of statistics I have produced to refute actual statements you have made.

Making statements up and claiming that they are arguments I made is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Anyone can make baseless claims. I claim your left leg is a foot shorter than your right leg, your hair is purple, and that you eat birch bark for breakfast. Now that I made that claim does it mean it is valid? Claims require supporting evidence, of which you have provided NONE. You provide lists of "the safest" nations on the Earth and just claim they correlate with gun control. There is no evidence these lists have anything to do with gun ownership.

Correlation does not equal causation. This is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

-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

Your argument is that the availability of guns is a greater danger than not having guns available. I provided evidence of direct circumstances where an unarmed population is put in danger by NOT owning firearms, therefore this is in fact the same debate.

Cherry picking your arguments is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

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?

I never made that claim, you made that claim. In fact I explained why nations that are safe might also have an overall high crime rate, because crime rates include ALL CRIME, not just violent crime.

Making statements and claiming that I made them is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

The whole internet says THE EXACT CONTRARY of what you're saying!

Just because you can find a preponderance of writings that agree with your opinions does not mean they are based on facts and empirical data.

Claiming that many people agree with your argument automatically makes it valid is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

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.

Again, please do quote any statement I made that you can prove to be false and provide evidence to refute it. You might want to double check where you get your stats about "20 mass shootings a year". There are groups who qualify any instance of a firearm injuring (not killing) 2 or more people as a mass shooting. Additionally by those same metrics a person who shoots his wife, then kills himself is counted as a mass shooting. You have zero ability to scientifically examine the information you blindly believe for the underlying empirical data, and treat any words you come across that support your bias as truth, and then you have the nerve to call me stupid for disagreeing with you (while you fail to provide reliable counter evidence by the way).

Your claim that because something supposedly works in Europe, it must also work in the USA is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division


Here is a basic tutorial on logic. You need it. Please review it before ever again attempting to engage in what you believe to be a debate.

http://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text/c01_3-99.pdf

[mOgliE]

Gah, why can't stalkers quote me properly...

Oh, sorry I didn't take the time to add your name and post number above my quote, guess it totally changes the fact that you're wrong...


TECShare... I don't have the nergy to fight your bad faith. You're just playing on words and you know it. Facts are here:
-Number of mass shootings in the US: http://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page
-number of homicides per million: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

So you have the fight to take any part of my speach and explaining how it is not perfect. But what you're claiming is "guns allow us to protect ourselves from bad guys with guns", seems like you don't understand that if guns are correctly controlled, no one have guns. And that's why the US murder rate per million is in the midle of Nigeria and Lybia.

For the part about government... It is, again, a question of faith and trust in your government. You got the right to feel the need to protect yourself against your government, but again, that's another debate.
My claim: "Gun freedom makes society more violent and more dangerous"
Your answer "Gun freedom allows the people to protect themselves against their government"

The two claims are compatible. Not the same debate. And as I answered previously, owning guns in case of a dictatorial government would only lead to huge civil war so I don't think you can call that safe.

[mOgliE]

I never made that claim, you made that claim. In fact I explained why nations that are safe might also have an overall high crime rate, because crime rates include ALL CRIME, not just violent crime.

Making statements and claiming that I made them is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Ok on this one I absolutely didn't understand what you meant at first. So please accept my apologies here for not understanding this argument. Seems like my non-fluent English level led me to misunderstanding your point, which is valid.

[mOgliE]

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.  

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous.  

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France. Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically.

Title of the thread is "what is your opinion of gun control?". So I come here and (as I love explaining my point of view) I give my opinion which is "gun freedom leads to a more violent society than gun control".

I still find strange that licensed persons walk with a charged weapon. I mean in Europe you can also have a weapon if you want (though it's incredibly much more complicated), but the principle is that you can't have it ready to fire on public. You must have it dismounted.
The question of having the right to own a license is not really the debate, the question is more how can you get that license. What are the requirements to own a weapon in USA? From what I saw, it's just "not being a total crazy dude" ^^

[Spendulus]

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.  

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous.  

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France.  Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically....

Really?  I've heard of the Gangs of Marseilles from all the way over here.

I don't believe you.  This website shows crime in France to be about 10% less than that in the USA. 

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

That's a very, very slight difference compared say to (US or France) versus South Africa.

And now you have terrorist bombings in Paris.  You have Charlie Hebro.  You have large numbers of violent, if not terrorist, Muslim immigrants.

[mOgliE]

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.  

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous.  

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France. Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically....

Really?  I've heard of the Gangs of Marseilles from all the way over here.

I don't believe you.

Believe it or not ^^

I studied in the north of Marseille for three years, so in the "dangerous district". Nothing ever happened there.
Yeah there are gangs in Marseille, but they don't do much most of the time. It's just that as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ever happen in other cities (talking about fights with guns here, not saying it's only peace and love), the fact that a gang fights another one once or twice a year is a big news for us xD

Anyway, there is still around 50 murders by firearms in France every year, so of course it has to happen somewhere. And most of them happen in few districts of Paris and North zone of Marseille. But I lived there for three years and nothing happen 99% of the times. Just that when something happens it's more likely to be there.

[Spendulus]

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.  

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous.  

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France. Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically....

Really?  I've heard of the Gangs of Marseilles from all the way over here.

I don't believe you.

Believe it or not ^^

I studied in the north of Marseille for three years, so in the "dangerous district". Nothing ever happened there.
Yeah there are gangs in Marseille, but they don't do much most of the time. It's just that as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ever happen in other cities (talking about fights with guns here, not saying it's only peace and love), the fact that a gang fights another one once or twice a year is a big news for us xD

Anyway, there is still around 50 murders by firearms in France every year, so of course it has to happen somewhere. And most of them happen in few districts of Paris and North zone of Marseille. But I lived there for three years and nothing happen 99% of the times. Just that when something happens it's more likely to be there.

 This website shows crime in France to be about 10% less than that in the USA.

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

That's a very, very slight difference compared say to (US or France) versus South Africa.

However, suppose you look at homicide rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

Here the USA is perhaps average (5/100,000) but France is on the low side (1/100,000).

country - total - homicides - suicides
USA 10.64    3.55  6.70
France 2.83    0.21 2.16

It looks to me like the criminal in France is more likely to attack with a meat cleaver than a gun.  But the person intended to commit suicide finds it easier to use a gun than a meat cleaver.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[mOgliE]

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.  

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous.  

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France. Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically....

Really?  I've heard of the Gangs of Marseilles from all the way over here.

I don't believe you.

Believe it or not ^^

I studied in the north of Marseille for three years, so in the "dangerous district". Nothing ever happened there.
Yeah there are gangs in Marseille, but they don't do much most of the time. It's just that as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ever happen in other cities (talking about fights with guns here, not saying it's only peace and love), the fact that a gang fights another one once or twice a year is a big news for us xD

Anyway, there is still around 50 murders by firearms in France every year, so of course it has to happen somewhere. And most of them happen in few districts of Paris and North zone of Marseille. But I lived there for three years and nothing happen 99% of the times. Just that when something happens it's more likely to be there.

 This website shows crime in France to be about 10% less than that in the USA.

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

That's a very, very slight difference compared say to (US or France) versus South Africa.

However, suppose you look at homicide rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

Here the USA is perhaps average (5/100,000) but France is on the low side (1/100,000).

country - total - homicides - suicides
USA 10.64    3.55  6.70
France 2.83    0.21 2.16

It looks to me like the criminal in France is more likely to attack with a meat cleaver than a gun.  But the person intended to commit suicide finds it easier to use a gun than a meat cleaver.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Of course that's why I was talking only about violent crimes. It's not because there is gun control that there will be no thief anymore. But the idea is that they don't use guns. So it's much less dangerous (believe it or not a knife is less dangerous than an mp5) so there is a lower homicide rate.

Crime rates, taking all crimes into account, is more a question of social and economic situation. And on this point I'd say we're slightly better but frankly speaking it's just an impression. I think we have more or less the same economic state.

[Wilikon]

South Carolina Lawmaker Introduces Bill Requiring Journalists To Register To Exercise Their 1st Amendment Rights, Same As For Gun Owners To Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights



A South Carolina lawmaker cited coverage of guns when he introduced a bill Tuesday that would require journalists in the state to register with the government before reporting news.

According to the summary of the bill, dubbed “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Law,” it would require journalists and media organizations to register and pay fees to the Secretary of State. There would also be fines and criminal penalties for violating the law.

Somewhat ironically, the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Mike Pitts, said he introduced the bill because of the elusive media’s attack on Constitutional rights.

“I filed this legislation as an experiment to make a point about the media and how they only care about the constitution when it comes their portion of the 1st Amendment,” he wrote on social media.

“The only portion they care about is freedom of the press. They constantly attack people who follow their Christain (sic) beliefs and attempt to portray them as bigots, and they certainly do not like the fact that normal everyday Americans gather to petition the government and air grievances,” he continued. “Look no further than how they have demonized the Tea Party. Furthermore, they love to trample on our 2nd Amendment rights to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’. If they had their way, there would be no 2nd Amendment.”[…]

Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, told the Associated Press that he’d lobby hard against the measure, which he said he found bizarre.

“Any registration of journalists would be unconstitutional — unless you lived in Cuba or North Korea,” Rogers said.


http://www.guns.com/2016/01/20/due-to-coverage-of-guns-bill-introduced-to-register-journalists/

[BADecker]

South Carolina Lawmaker Introduces Bill Requiring Journalists To Register To Exercise Their 1st Amendment Rights, Same As For Gun Owners To Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights



A South Carolina lawmaker cited coverage of guns when he introduced a bill Tuesday that would require journalists in the state to register with the government before reporting news.

According to the summary of the bill, dubbed “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Law,” it would require journalists and media organizations to register and pay fees to the Secretary of State. There would also be fines and criminal penalties for violating the law.

Somewhat ironically, the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Mike Pitts, said he introduced the bill because of the elusive media’s attack on Constitutional rights.

“I filed this legislation as an experiment to make a point about the media and how they only care about the constitution when it comes their portion of the 1st Amendment,” he wrote on social media.

“The only portion they care about is freedom of the press. They constantly attack people who follow their Christain (sic) beliefs and attempt to portray them as bigots, and they certainly do not like the fact that normal everyday Americans gather to petition the government and air grievances,” he continued. “Look no further than how they have demonized the Tea Party. Furthermore, they love to trample on our 2nd Amendment rights to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’. If they had their way, there would be no 2nd Amendment.”[…]

Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, told the Associated Press that he’d lobby hard against the measure, which he said he found bizarre.

“Any registration of journalists would be unconstitutional — unless you lived in Cuba or North Korea,” Rogers said.


http://www.guns.com/2016/01/20/due-to-coverage-of-guns-bill-introduced-to-register-journalists/

If must register, not rights... privileges.   

[Spendulus]

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.  

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous.  

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France. Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically....

Really?  I've heard of the Gangs of Marseilles from all the way over here.

I don't believe you.

Believe it or not ^^

I studied in the north of Marseille for three years, so in the "dangerous district". Nothing ever happened there.
Yeah there are gangs in Marseille, but they don't do much most of the time. It's just that as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ever happen in other cities (talking about fights with guns here, not saying it's only peace and love), the fact that a gang fights another one once or twice a year is a big news for us xD

Anyway, there is still around 50 murders by firearms in France every year, so of course it has to happen somewhere. And most of them happen in few districts of Paris and North zone of Marseille. But I lived there for three years and nothing happen 99% of the times. Just that when something happens it's more likely to be there.

 This website shows crime in France to be about 10% less than that in the USA.

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

That's a very, very slight difference compared say to (US or France) versus South Africa.

However, suppose you look at homicide rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

Here the USA is perhaps average (5/100,000) but France is on the low side (1/100,000).

country - total - homicides - suicides
USA 10.64    3.55  6.70
France 2.83    0.21 2.16

It looks to me like the criminal in France is more likely to attack with a meat cleaver than a gun.  But the person intended to commit suicide finds it easier to use a gun than a meat cleaver.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Of course that's why I was talking only about violent crimes. It's not because there is gun control that there will be no thief anymore. But the idea is that they don't use guns. So it's much less dangerous (believe it or not a knife is less dangerous than an mp5) so there is a lower homicide rate.

Crime rates, taking all crimes into account, is more a question of social and economic situation. And on this point I'd say we're slightly better but frankly speaking it's just an impression. I think we have more or less the same economic state.

Military training is that at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun, reason is reaction times.  Reminds me of the three Afgan soldiers, each with AK47, who holed up in a cave for the night, even though it smelled a bit funny.  Then the bear came in.

Next.  Three dead soldiers.

[eon89]

The states that let people buy guns from stores like you'd be buying bread require a permit and courses to be taken, like when you get a driver's license?
Of course, we should all get guns and shoot everybody that comes our way.
Your teeth are not straight, I don't like it - BAM - you're dead.

[TheButterZone]

Of course, we should all get guns and shoot everybody that comes our way.
Your teeth are not straight, I don't like it - BAM - you're dead.

^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

No mentally-sound, law-abiding person would say that.

[BADecker]

The states that let people buy guns from stores like you'd be buying bread require a permit and courses to be taken, like when you get a driver's license?
Of course, we should all get guns and shoot everybody that comes our way.
Your teeth are not straight, I don't like it - BAM - you're dead.

The States don't really have any choice in the matter. Any person who knows a little basic law can run all over State law regarding guns... if he wants.

Consider Waco. The only reason that there are not a lot of Koresh-type churches is, there are not a lot of people interested in doing that kind of thing. However, if the State or Federal want to do another Waco thing, there are going to be a lot of people up in arms all over.

Federal was trying to make an example of Waco. What it did was anger the people. The only reason that the people don't do anything about it is, they haven't been pushed quite far enough yet. Next time. State gun laws won't stop the people, and SHOULDN'T stop the people.