What Do You Think About Gun Control Law?

I dont understand this, so you are saying it would be better if the citizens didnt have any guns what so ever? You dont get much outgunned than that.




I know that, that is why you have to fight for you rights and freedom when it is not a matter of life and death. That is why you should never give your government too much power so it can not never oppress you in the first place.




Relying on other countries to come for your rescue is not a good idea, the civil war in Syria for example has lasted 3-4 years now with like 100 000 civilians dead. Yes, some countries have give assistance, but only pretty much in form of aid and food. Nobody is seriously giving armed help to either side, because every major country fears that if they get involved it would only form into a bigger war. So in my opinion 'hoping' that other countries come to your aid is not a good idea.




So are you saying that people should just be happy in which country they are born in and not fight for better rights? If you are born in a country that has a dictator and also which doesnt have constitutional rights, and there are no 'democratic' ways to improve or change the current laws, are you saying that either move out or deal with it?




Of coarse, im not saying that people having the right to bear arms is gonna solve all problems. It takes A LOT for citizens of any country to mobilize against their government in any series way. I am simply saying that you should never take your government for granted, you should never think that the government is always thinking about you when it is making any decisions.

The people should NOT fear the government, the government should fear the people!

Yes I think it's better to not have guns. But that's just because I believe it would be better if they did not resist through violent means. It is when people resist violently that the military is brought in, and at that point you're going to get major casualties. If you resist through more subtle means, the loss of life will be far less.

If you're fighting for your rights when it isn't a matter of life and death, you don't need to use a gun to do so. If someone tries to violate, say, your right to free speech, is it alright for you to shoot them? No, and you would likely be charged with murder.

The main reason no one is involved in Syria is because there is already a civil war, and there aren't many people who want to get involved with a war that's already going on, because it's much harder to tell who is on the 'right' side. If the Syrian people had not started a war against it's own government, the number of casualties would be far lower, and it would probably be much closer to obtaining aid from foreign countries. Obviously I'm not saying it will be easy to get help, and I'm sure that it would take a longer time overall than a civil war, but it would be likely a far less bloody method, and thus in my mind the better option.



Not at all. I was simply pointing out that your referral to ones constitutional rights being broken only works in the context of a country which has such rights. So what I was saying was that, even if your rights had not been broken, if you (and enough other people) are unhappy with the way your government treats you, you should be able to resist, or in some way attempt to change the system.



I doubt the government would fear the people, jusf because they have guns. The comparitive armament of the military is so much better, that the government can fairly easily control their population. In a democracy at least, the government already 'fears' the people, because the people are the ones who ultimately decide who is in power.

Ideally, neither group should fear the other. They should treat each other as lovers: get to know each other intimately and have a mutual fondness for each other.

Lets imagine that the military is brought in before anybody even resists, imagine there has been a military coup, a dictator has taken power of your country and deleted all your rights. The only way you even can resist in that case is with guns and through violence. That example may sound like far fetched, but those scenarios really do happen and to resist through subtle means or hope that other countries come to your help is not a good idea or ineffective.




I totally agree with you and understand your point, but that is not what i am advocating here. I am only advocating the notion that we should have the right to bear arms even at times when we don't need it, because when or if the time comes when we do need that right, but we don't have it, it most of the time is too late at that point.




If you agree to this, i don't understand your point of asking help from other countries. (I am looking this from the Syrian peoples point of view, not the governments)




This is the whole point! Why do you think they started a war? I doubt they started it because they had the right to bear arms or because they are fanatics or blood thirsty. No, they started a war against their own government, because that was the (only) way for them to fight for their rights that they either wanted or got taken away from them. (Ofc starting a war is not the only way or the best way to achieve this, but out of the possible ways it sometimes is the only or most possible way.)




Well, i think they would fear. Just because the government has the power of the military (and sometimes they don't), it would be very hard for example in the case of USA to control the people if 100 million citizens are able to organize (would be very unlikely but not impossible), unless the military are willing to commit genocide against its own people.




That sounds like a nice utopian vision (i am not trying to be sarcastic, i agree with you), but i think way too unrealistic. 2 people who are lovers almost half the time fight and break up, now try to imagine 300 million or billion people and their government have that relationship. Or maybe in the small island nations they have these type of relationships, i don't know.

This is a topic I think strongly of but mein gott is that quite a read. Going through the ongoing argument, I'd have to agree with Coconutt that armed citizenry is a means to keep the government in check. History has shown that the worst of dictatorships started with the removal of arms from its civilians.

I'd go on a bit about how government should and does fear the general public or more so the potential within them but that's diverging from the topic at hand.

One flaw of gun control laws is that it only ever applies to the law abiding. The topic picture does a good job presenting this, if criminals wanted a gun, they will use illegal means to get one. It takes on average for police 10 or so minutes to respond to a 911 call(give or take, different sources have different figures), I'd damn well feel a lot better with something to help me hold out until they arrive.

I also feel that areas that are announced as weapons free are the most bullshit thing. Unless they actually have people at the borders of these areas that properly check for weapons as you enter, anyone could sneak a gun in and lay waste on the people stupid enough to feel safe there. It wouldn't have to be a gun though, people can still kill well enough without a firearm.

How I feel about gun control laws. They weaken the law abiding public and resort criminals to more barbaric means of violence.

This similar things have happened before and been resolved through non-violent means. And it's quite a famous example of non-violent protest. I feel rather clichéed bringing him up, but nonetheless, Mahatma Gandhi. Britain took control of India with force, and it's people were subjugated and turned to second class citizens. Some of them did use force against the British, but were almost invariable defeated. With Gandhi and his peaceful protest, the world was shown how these people, who in there refusal to fight could not be considered 'terrorists', were brutally attacked by the Britons. Thus, the international society pressured Britain into stopping the oppression, and eventually giving India it's independence.

The only situation that comes to mind where such resistive measures are totally ineffective is when the government is literally trying to commit genocide against it's own people. In that case, it's either fight or flight. Personally I would choose flight.



Well, the point I am trying to argue is that when there is a time when the right to bear arms should actually be used, it is almost always better to not use said right, and thus the right itself is pointless. In modern times, it more serves as symbolism than having any practical use.



My point was that, had they not started the war, foreign countries would be more inclined to help them, as they would appear more as the oppressed people, and less as potentially terrorists who simply dislike the ideology of the government.



I understand why they started the war. I just question weather or not it was a good option. In my mind, it was certainly not a good decision, because it paints them in a more negative light, and so they are less likely to receive foreign aid, and thus more of them will die. And in fact, the war was likely started by a small group of armed civilians, who because of their charisma, or superior arms, or perhaps some victory over the government, got a lot of attention from the populace. So people who would normally have engaged in peaceful protest would have joined them seeing them, incorrectly, as the best way to solve the problem. That is of course a claim based entirely on psychological and historical knowledge, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Honestly, I think the people in the best position to survive the conflict are those who don't engage in the fighting, and simply stay out of the way, irrespective of who they think is 'right'.



It would be ridiculously easy to control them. You either vastly overestimate the force of 100 million civilians, or drastically underestimate the US military. And I'm sure there are plenty of lunatics the government could hire to pull the trigger on their own people, should they wish it. If the government want's to, it can kill the entire US population whenever it wants.



Indeed. And I don't remember any discontent with the state government when I lived in Hawai'i. I was only there til I was 8 though, so I probably wouldn't have noticed even if there was.

... I'm not from the states.. and I can only imagine those examples you gave me happening in the states which is one of the few countries which I know actually do allow guns..

So if you say the states are free.. and those things doesn't happens as much there then why do they need guns there? Or guns at all, sure you want to do self defense.. but what does a gun do? I mean it can kill people, if you want to fight for your right there are other ways to do it which doesn't need violence or weapons..

Maybe I'm just naive and stupid cause I grew up in a very peaceful and 'normal' government controlled country that I can't relate or understand how allowing guns can solve anything, sure now you can kill the government but then what?. If not anything I would imagine it making things worse.

[quote="DefinitelyNotARussianSpy"]

Indeed, but it is notable that the correlations themselves either indicate no difference or an increase in crime post gun control in several different countries at different times. It is not proof that gun control is harmful, but it is evidence.



It isn't particularly difficult to acquire illegal merchandise. Illegal transactions are tax free too, so the infrastructure for a black market on high value goods like guns already exists in areas I know of even without heavy regulations, and probably exists in most areas.

In fact in my area about a decade ago too much gun control lead to a great increase in black market gun sales among otherwise law-abiding citizens. Guns are useful for simple things like driving off coyotes or killing skunks from a distance here. Extra regulation made it easier to just buy an illegal gun than to go through the paperwork of registering one.

With that in mind understand that for the most part the increased risk of acquiring an illegal gun is often negligible, and thus regulations really don't help prevent someone who really wants a gun from getting it.



The use of violence necessitates violence in return. The very few cases of peaceful protests being successful have been lauded loudly to our generation, but the reality is that such cases are ridiculously rare in history and contemporary humanity.

There is no real reason to think of passiveness as a virtue anyway. There is another kind of honour in saying that one will not start a fight, but one will certainly end it. I'll be that kind of person, and stick with that kind of person in a conflict.



It's more simple than that to me. Bringing the use of force to the table via action or tangible threat brings the use of force to the table. What they may actually do is immaterial, they've crossed a line and made themselves a material threat to the safety and security of those around me and need to be neutralized.

If their threat was in fact empty and they took a beat down just for making it they'll not soon be making threats again. If they would have gone through with it than their damage was prevented. There is no reason not to use force.



Have you done this? Have you faced this?

There certainly are situations where people can be talked down, I'm not being dismissive of that at all. However your tone seems rather idealistic and I'm inclined to think you haven't dealt with much of this kind of thing directly.

I suppose all that pertains to how active the black market in your country is. Here in England (to my knowledge) there isn't such an active black market and such having control over the legal sellings of firearms do in fact alter the level of gun crime by a drastic ammount. Not that it stops it here obviously, and I imagine where you live may have a more active black market.

Not much more to say from me regarding that, I disagree about how much of an effect it has from the context of my life but I can't continue to argue given how little I know about America's laws and the context of your black market.



I guess this is where our opinions just differ and I don't argue to change someone's opinion (Unless I think they're just stupidly wrong). I do think passiveness in these cases are a virtue, if we follow violence with more violence then more people will end up dying than necessary. I understand that may sound idealistic and I wouldn't expect someone to simply sit by if they saw their family shot to death in a home invasion, but I would also argue the same to the criminal who would be shot to death if they broke in. The point of our legal system is to take in criminals and rehabilitate them, that can't happen when they're dead because someone decided to shoot them instead of hiding.



I understand that too, but as I said, our legal system isn't put in place to kill someone just because you perceive them as a threat to your family. Justice of the highest order should be dealt out to them for crossing that line, but I don't think that killing the person in question is the right thing to do. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.




I have faced something very similar before in two seperate situations.

Once I was beaten for having foreign heritage and it resulted in the dislocation of my right shoulder. Do I wish I had a gun to protect me? No. Of course not. I'm better than that, I wouldn't kill because I'm in danger or could be potentially killed. I attempted to talk the person in question down, it didn't work, but some local residents restrained them. This is why I believe in the innate goodness, despite the fact that I was being beaten two people who I had no contact with came to my aid and saved me without using a weapon or hurting anyone else.

On a separate situation when I was 8 my house was broken into by a robber holding a knife. Luckily my father is a police officer and he somehow managed to talk the man down after asking him some basic questions about himself. This reinforced my ideal about humanity, he could have easily killed my Dad and made off with our items in the house but he didn't. He realised what he was doing was wrong and stopped. Again, I know that this was a one-off situation and most knife-wielding criminals won't be as relenting but why can't it happen again? Why can't all the criminals I ever encounter be so relenting? Statistics may say otherwise but statistics can't talk for human nature in such a way.

I like how your automatically assuming that anyone who wishes to use a gun to defend themselves is going to shot first ask questions later. Most situations the defender isn't going to have to shoot to chase away the criminal and I doubt they want to either. Shooting the criminal is the last resort for when all else fails.

Given the context of the conversation shooting someone else was the topic. Additionally, the topic we've been talking about refers to the criminal having a weapon. If they have a weapon and are willing to do harm do you think you having a weapon will deter them from their action? I don't. It's not like you'll draw at the same time and then both decide against the action.

I wasn't assuming anything, in fact JPGS refers to 'neutralising' the criminal, which can be seen as a term for killing especially given the context of what we were talking about.

Most situations won't involve the firing of a firearm but those situations are irrelevant (For the most part) given what we were talking about.

Reaper is quite right, neutralizing someone is just that, taking away their ability to be a threat. Merely having a gun when they don't can bring about an immediate surrender. Beyond that there are many non-vital points to shoot...



Why would you think there isn't? I don't know England but it seems naeive to think there wound's be one.



I'm not American.



It's not just that, it's that while most people get Gandhi shoved down their throat they're not so well informed on the number of pacifists slaughtered outright throughout history. The circumstances that let Gandhi accomplish anything where rare ones indeed and merely allowing yourself to be killed for an ideal does not prevent violence in any tangible way. If once someone has raised themselves to violence first and you meet them and disable, incarcerate, or kill them then their violence is ended and you can have peace.

If you choose not to defend yourself and are killed by a violent person they can continue to harm others, and your passiveness has perpetuated violence.

The primary purpose of law is to protect the weak from those who would oppress them. Even from the time of Hamurabi that was done by disabling criminals (killed or hands cut off), enforcing contracts and trade (preventing fraud ect)and preventing the upper classes from oppressing the lower (even in Hammurabi's day this was a thing).

Rehabilitation doesn't even make the list. As soon as that's the priority you're valuing criminals more than your average person. That's honestly kind of disgusting to me.



It is in place to protect people from criminals. Even if we are talking about lethal force no sane country would prosecute a victim who was themselves threatened with lethal force.

In many ways if someone is far enough gone it's better to end their lives than to keep them penned up indefinitely.



Again, there is nothing 'better' about being passive. Unless you're wed to a particular religion that promotes that particular course of action as a virtue (which you may well be) there is no reason to be passive over being aggressive.

But the situation of talking someone down is certainly possible, it is neat you've seen it done. Some can be talked and some can't. But being armed doesn't prevent negotiation. Rather being better armed it means that you have more leisure to talk, as you have the power in the situation and can bring it out whenever you need to.

I never claimed there wasn't, just it wasn't as active. Knife crime is much more of an issue than gun crime here to the point where gun crime is rarely reported. That's the basis for most of my opinion on Gun control.




I'm not saying I value anyone's life over anyone else's. I'm just saying it seems kind of pointless to have our justice system in place when people are given the right to just kill someone because someone may be breaking the law. If people were perfect shots or could talk all criminals down without violence then I'd be all for people having whatever weapons they want to protect themselves, but that isn't the case in our world. So long as their is a chance of harming someone else or ending up with the criminal dying then I see it as just discrediting and almost insulting the police force and justice system whom I have great respect for (Gee I wonder why?).

Then again that's some idealistic world where all criminals could be persuaded otherwise.



That's all well and fine but I would rather a criminal be prosecuted for their crimes rather than just killed on the spot. It's just my preference, I wouldn't condemn someone for killing someone else because they had their life on the line I just would prefer no-one dying so the justice system can be used. Although that's less to do with firearms and more to do with preferences on how the situation plays out as a whole.



Again, we just seem to have a difference of opinion. I see what I did by not reacting and being passive as better. I've been raised to forgoe action in the face of danger and try to find a more peaceful solution. Maybe I suffered injuries but I am proud I kept my ideals intact. I don't like to be aggressive, its just not in my nature to be so and I just can't agree with the point you're trying to make. I respect it and by no means am I discrediting it it's just that I simply disagree with it.

I see what you mean about being better armed and I don't disagree with it. I only debate whether its effective in the most extreme situations when someone will end up dying. I myself wouldn't want to die but neither would I want to kill someone and that's why I think it's better to be passive, since that scenario is less likely to occur.

Well since gun laws are about cutting down on crime(not just gun crime) I thought I would provide the crime stats of two different countries with wildly different gun laws. The US and UK(though UK is only England and Wales). It's a bit hard to compare the two since they present their data differently but it might be interesting to look at for those interested.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224037/hosb0213.pdf

I honestly can't say that I'm in favor of some gun control laws. It seems like a good idea on some levels, but it also has it's flaws. While it would most likely, based on how it has affected many countries, cut down crime quite a bit, it wouldn't solve the problem even with gun related crimes completely. There will always be other ways to acquire guns regardless of the legality of it. It would also have a change on the environment and economy, as people often hunt animals for profit as well as food, as well as in an attempt to keep populations down, and with the removal of guns, many of these animals would grow in numbers and be forced to move out of their natural area or starve. The lack of guns may also have an impact on our ability to feel safe. The removal of guns from others may help us feel much safer in our homes, but the removal from ourselves in some areas may do the opposite. Depending on where you live and what you do, the effect may be positive or negative. And getting rid of guns will not get rid of the threat. If a person is hell-bent on killing you, he'll do it with or without a gun. Getting rid of a gun just complicates things, as humans are smart enough to find another way to accomplish something if there is a problem with the current method. I know that some of my information may be incorrect or speculation, but I'm just giving my opinion based upon my knowledge, so if anything is wrong with my statement, feel free to correct me so that I may know learn more. I'm not trying to start arguments on this subject and am merely trying to contribute.

I see, that's fair.



But people ARE given the right to kill someone if lethal force is threatened at them. When lesser force is threatened only lesser force is allowed, but all of that is part of the basic right to self-defence. I'm not sure what country would actually lack that right, but it is essentially universal.



And this is where I see you as having it backwards. If all criminals could be talked down then I'd be all for disarming people, but so long as there is a chance the criminal will harm someone innocent I want people able to protect themselves.

Again your first concern is for the criminal, where my concern will always be for the innocent first. If the criminal can be saved that's a bonus, but protect the innocent first, worry about the criminal later.



I'm not without relatives in law enforcement, but none of them would say the system is without problems or that all their peers are trustworthy. Nor can any of them, even the best, spontaneously appear at an incident taking place immediately.



Our difference of opinion comes in the approach. Neather of us would say not to use diplomacy, but I wish for the option to take action if diplomacy fails. What is your action if diplomacy fails?

Our scenario for handling a dangerous situation plays out identically right up to the point that diplomacy is no longer an option. Where are you left at that point other than to be victimized and let the person get away with whatever they want up to your very life? Most likely letting them go to re-offend once or more before they can finally be captured?

I have the option to disable them at that point and ensure their capture, or if absolutely need be ensure their death so they can never be a threat again. You're merely one option shorter than I am.



The only time you can use lethal force is if lethal force is threatened. You're not disagreeing with me here. Again, our ideal situation is the same.




Well written. I don't suppose there is anything else to discuss on that part of the topic.



There is an American saying 'speak softly and carry a big stick'.

If someone WILL end up dying either way I'd prefer it was the criminal. But if the innocent is better armed it is very unlikely criminal will try to push their disadvantage and escalate the situation, and if they do they are an incredibly dangerous and unstable person in the first place.

Anyway, good conversation. I think we agree on more than you think, but the values and priorities are different which produces different conclusions.

I don't mind the idea of obtaining and owning weapons a bit more difficult and I would like to see them crack down more on the illegal weapons ownage and usage (it scares me how easily you can get a gun off of the street or buy the parts from sketchy sites and make them yourself). I just don't want to see there come a day where you could not own a gun and allow the government have complete power over this.

To be honest I worry about our states system since it is in the hands of people and the more power you have the more there is a chance you can abuse it. I just want to know that if something ever happened whether it be a criminal breaking into my place or a zombie apocalypse happens, that I have the means to protect not only myself, but the one's I love.... there is a terrible, yet true joke that it takes longer for the police to get to your place vs the pizza delivery man.... this has happened on multiple occasions back home and even if you complain they don't give two shits (two hours for the police to arrive when they are 5-10 minutes away from your house is absurd).

Anyways, it will always be a double edge sword with this subject because whatever you end up doing to fix one problem will usually make another issue worse or create more.... or will just make everything worse without solving anything.

Gun control works you say?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/oGVianQJsmQ.*?[/youtube]

I see your point and actually agree to it. It is possible to fight for your rights in a peaceful way, unless the government is willing to commit genocide and unfortunately i think we have too many examples of cases where the government actually is willing to commit the genocide. That is why i persoanlly don't put much trust in governments.




I think that statement of "almost always" is too naive to be realistic if not even false. Many people die because they don't have that right or chose not to use it! And because i think that the statement "almost always" is not true, your next statement of "thus the right itself is pointless" is even more wrong or even stupid. When you ask "Why its stupid or wrong?" i think honestly i have explained my self in the earlier comments i made in this topic.




Again i think you have naive statements here. There is a difference to 'appearing' oppressed and 'being' oppressed and it is debatable which Syrian people are. (Again i honestly think i have given enough reasons in the earlier comments of mine why they should fight instead of surrender.) Disliking your governments ideology may be a given right in the western countries, but it is a death sentence or life in prison in others (i am not saying every other country besides western country is like this).




"The Syrian Civil War, also known as the Syrian Uprising, is an armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Ba'ath government, which took power in 1963, and those seeking to oust it. The unrest started as a civil uprising that were part of the wider North African and Middle Eastern protest movements known as the Arab Spring, with Syrian protesters at first demanding democratic and economic reform within the framework of the existing government. The uprising began with protests in March 2011 in Daraa, and by April, the protests spread nationwide.

In April 2011, the Syrian Army was deployed to quell the uprising and soldiers fired on demonstrators across the country. After months of military sieges, the protests developed into an armed rebellion. The conflict is asymmetrical, with clashes taking place in many towns and cities across the country."

That is a straight quote from wikipedia. To think that there is point of "lets decide either peaceful way or war" is stupid. They started with peaceful protests (without a doubt there have been huligans causing damage) and the governments answer was to stop the protests with force. Again, this is what i am talking about, if the only way you can fight for you rights is through violence, then that is what you should do. (I still agree to the example of Gandhi you gave, but your point it seems to be that if that doesn't work then just move out, imagine for second 20 million people moving out of their country because the governments oppresses them).




If the USA wants to they can almost destroy all life on earth, so as can Russia and China, that is not big news. You are the one who is overestimating and underestimating. I am arguing USA would defeat its own citizens in a war if they were willing to commit genocide against them. (This is all hypothetical reasoning and not very useful to this debate).




If you had read my debate with Silence of the Yanderes like at all, you should know my answer to that.




Yep, you are naive (but not stupid). Considering the underlined part, a stranger comes to your home and holds a knife to your child's throat (imagine you have a gun in your house). What would you do, call the cops and wait for them, or shoot the fucker?

So in the case of genocide, what do you do? Four options come to mind. Side with those committing genocide (if possible), give up, flee, or fight. The only on you would feasibly need a gun for is fight. And if your fighting against a superior force willing to commit genocide, whether or not you have a gun is unlikely to change your fate.



So the bedrock of our argument at this point is, 'are there enough instances where using the right to bear arms is the better option to justify the necessity of said right?'. As I recall, in all instances you've brought up where you've claimed it is better to use guns, I have disagreed with you. I can't think of any situation where it's better to use guns off the top of my head. If you could furnish me with enough situations where I agree it is better to use guns, then I will yield.



It matters not which they actually are. My point if they 'appeared' more as an innocent people being oppressed (regardless of whether they actually are), then they would be more likely to get foreign support. No, disliking your governments ideology will not get you killed. Publicly voicing said negative opinions will get you killed. And as I said before, ones 'rights' have no value in this context. What matters is that you dislike the way your treated.

In addition, I never suggested they should surrender. Surrendering is their worst option at this point. But that is not what I am arguing about. Once you start a war to get better rights, you have to see it through to the end, or things will simply get worse. I am arguing that starting the war in the first place was not the best choice.



Your quote from wikipedia tells me little of the first 'rebel' military action, where the people started to fight back. It tells me why they chose to fight but not who or how.

And furthermore, I still believe there were better ways for them to go about their resistance. Continued peaceful (preferably even more peaceful) protest, as well as getting the stories of their plight to other countries, would have led to a snowballing of foreign aid, and international pressure on the government to stop using lethal force on the protesters.

God that paragraph makes me sound like a hippie... but moving on.

I'm guessing in the moving out bit you were referencing when I said they should chose 'fight or flight' and that I would choose flight? If so you misunderstand. What I was saying was that if the government are that willing to kill their people, then your only 2 options are to fight, in which case it won't matter whether you have guns or not, you're going to be outclassed and are highly likely to die, or you can flee, in which case you will either die on the journey, or survive and take asylum in another country. Both are shit options, but I would personally choose the second.

In fact, everyone fleeing would probably end up with the oppressing government defeated, but the losses would be pretty extreme, so it probably isn't worth it.



This is exactly my point. Even if you have guns, they would be ineffective in a war against the US military. The people who resist will be decimated, demoralized, disbanded and probably harshly punished for their actions. The government doesn't have to commit genocide to crush a rebellion.



Neither. I would calmly ask him what he wants, and give it to him. Then I would wait for him to leave, then comfort my child and call the cops, reporting the crime. If you were to go for the gun, you would be unlikely to be able to reach it, aim and fire before the stranger slits their throat. I would rather lose some money than lose my child and possibly kill someone.

In World War 2 and in the Nazi Germany the people who chose to be passive and peaceful, many of them were gassed to death in the genocide.

The people who chose to rise up and fight against their oppressors who had way way better fighting force and way bigger army arguably not only saved them selves but their friends also. A lot of them also died because of this.

The defeat of the enemy was only possible because of other countries aid and the people would had been killed almost entirely if it wasn't for the aid.

Had none of the other countries helped the people, most likely the only ones who would have survived were the ones who fled.

We both have examples that prove us both right.




That is not the bedrock of MY argument. The necessity of right to bear arms is not dependent on having "enough instances", i single instance where the right to own guns in modern world to protect your rights is the best way is enough. I have given multiple instances where the right to own guns is the best way to protect your rights and history supports this. If you do not agree with me for your own reasons, that is your choice.




It does matter which you are. Jews did not 'appear' oppressed in WW2 (they did of coarse live in a conquered country so i guess it is common sense to say they were oppresses to some degree), but most definitely were. There was no major knowledge of the death camps until allied forces found them physically.

We know factually right now that North-Korean people are today oppressed almost more than any other human being on the planet today, but the international community doesn't do anything for them. It might be said that they don't ask for our help, and that is because the government is deemed that the normal North-Korean citizen has no 'rights' and is there for unable to ask for our help.

Do their 'rights' have value in this context?
Do you think they dislike the way they are treated?
Do you think being passive and peaceful helps them right now?




What is the best choice?
Can you give me "enough situations or instances" of peaceful protests ending the oppression other than Mahatma Gandhi?




So you think first military action was done by the people against the government? Why does it matter who or how? My quote from wikipedia does tell you how they tried to get better rights before the first rebel military action, and it also tells you governments reaction to the peoples peaceful methods. (I understand and agree those protests were not 100% peaceful, there were a lot of property destruction).




Just like in North-Korea today? Or do you think that the North-Koreans don't want our aid, that they are happy the way things are now?

Has North-Koreans situation led to snowballing of foreign aid? We can actually prove that the countries that have given aid to North-Korean people during the 1990s famine and after, that aid was given directly to the leaders of the government and their families, not the people who were dying of hunger.

Has international pressure on the government stopped them using lethal force on the people? (I understand they are not protesting at the moment, because anybody who disagrees with anything that the government does is sent to labor camps to work to death, or just killed immediately).




If government is willing to kill their own people and you choose to fight, how in the world it doesn't matter if you have guns or not, when today in Syria the government is willing to kill their own people (and i am talking about those civilians who are passive and peaceful, not just the rebels) and willing to even use chemical weapons on those people, and the very thing keeping them alive and making them able to fight back is the guns?

I know you say the real issue is that they chose to fight against their government with force in the first place, but i am arguing that it might have been the 'only' way even though i said earlier that it was not. (There are too many variables and unknowns to say which is the best way in my opinion).




I do understand that fleeing or like i said earlier 'moving out' might be the most likely way of surviving.




I am not gonna argue against this because it is just 'you say vs. i say' with hypothetical reasons.

You say that "this is your point", but i am not sure if you mean your point as whole or just as a point in the "people vs. USA government and the military".




I gave a 'simple' question that was full of assumptions, trying to prove a point. I could give you so scripted, yet realistic scenario where only possible way you can consider your self as 'winning' is by pulling the trigger and if you didn't pull, the "worst thing would happen." The same way as my question was full of assumptions, so is your answer.

If there is anything i can persuade you, maybe it is this:
Absolutely everything you said can be achieved without the right to bear arms, can be achieved with the right to bear arms! Meaning even when you have the right, you don't have to use it, that doesn't mean it is meaningless or pointless or useless!

I argue and in my opinion have proven that there are things you can only achieve with the right to bear arms, that i and many others consider not only as good actions but also right actions, and without this right, you or your loved ones could be hurt, imprisoned or killed.