That's exactly my point, when I talk about deescalation.
The mugger won't need a firearm, when it's a) difficult to get your hands on one, b) illegal to carry when in a routine control and c) not necessary because the victim won't have one either.

Lets see some statistics about people killed with a firearm in 2007.
US: 10.000 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offe...rtable_07.html)
Germany: 91 (that's murders and TRIED murders combined where the murderer carried a firearm, not necessarily used it) (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mord#Kriminalstatistik, also see sources from BKA (like FBI): http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2007/tab_01.pdf, http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2007/tab_91.pdf)

Germany has 82.000.000 inhabitants, the US have about 300.000.000.
So we have
33 Murders per Million Citizens in the US and
~1 Murder per Million Citizens in Germany.

Keep in mind, the actual rate of murders in Germany committed through a weapon is even lower than that.

By the way, I have often wondered about Spain. It's a wonderful country, which is pretty amazing considering that Franco, an ally of Hitler, took over the country for 50 years after crushing the legitimate government.

The lesson for me is that just because some dictatorship takes over does not mean that freedom will never re-emerge. In fact, the error of the hysterical 1960s and 1970s, in my opinion, is that there was a feeling that modern technology and propaganda was going to extinguish freedom.

This didn't happen in Spain, even though Franco the Nazi had lots of gun control. My further conclusion is that quick and dramatic revolution against dictatorship is not necessary; a slow and gradual struggle for freedom might be a better course of action.

If anyone is interested in this topic, and fans of using guns to fight against dictatorship might be in that category, I highly recommend Crane Brinton's The Anatomy of a Revolution, in which he demonstrates fairly clearly that an armed takeover of the government only results in the ascendancy of the military wing of the group taking over, and freedom suffers.

So, you who oppose dictatorship with your guns would likely just be helping to get rid of freedom.

The Soviet Union also managed to collapse without a general armed uprising of its citizenry as well. So gun ownership is in fact not essential in the fight for freedom. In fact, the number of dictatorships that have collapsed without significant armed struggle is quite large.

I do not see anytime in my lifetime that guns will be removed from American citizens. Nor do I support such a idea. I think that we have the fundamental right to be able to protect ourselves. I think however their should be laws to limit certain weapons made for combat purposes, as well as certain ammunition's. I do not see a correlation between gun ownership and the firearm related murder rate.

# Ranking
Country [gun ownership] [firearm related murders]
United States --- [#1] ----- [#8]
Switzerland ------ [#3] ----- [#19]
Finland ----------- [#7] ----- [>#32]
Canada ---------- [#8] ----- [#20]
Germany --------- [#11] ---- [#21]
South Africa ----- [#19] ---- [#1]



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o..._gun_ownership

At least your stats about firearms per citizen is useless. As it just divides the total amount of arms by the amount of citizens without taking into account who has these arms. The document given as source in that wikipedia article can not be found, so the information is useless. The other document also doesn't give out sources.

Some more to read: http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publication..._OWNERSHIP.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea...ions/2911.aspx

There are similar articles on Canada, and Australia. This was just from the summary.. if you want to see the sources you can read the research paper. One thing when comparing the US to other countries that people need to first establish is, IE, England: They had lower crime rates than the US even before the all-out ban on firearms that is prevalent there. So just pointing out that their rates are lowers than ours now has nothing to do with their gun control laws. What is important however.. is that after the gun control laws were in place, in most places, the crime rate either did not change, or actually has risen. Note: I did not say gun-related crime, just crime as a whole.

Now.. this study was done in 2003.. and several other study's and papers that I've read and see are in the 2005 and lower.. because finding comprehensive studies like this that compare several different countries, their laws, and their rates - are bound to be a few years old. Going out and reading "official" crime statistics (as a whole remember, you can't nit pick and just single out crimes where guns are used, because if the gun crime drops dramatically after a ban, but the violent crime as a whole rises more than the gun crime drops.. your ban accomplished nothing.) for every country, from say 2000 to 2008 is more effort than I plan to put into, as Aisu said, a Geek board debating gun control. By Official I mean, of course, things like FBI crime statistics and rates, the British Home Office, and whatever official papers and such of Canada, Australia, and anywhere else people want to argue.

Now... all statistics are slightly suspect to the POV of the writers.. and the methods used in gathering such statistics. Any two opponents, one for and one against, that are well versed in the publishings of papers, articles, and other sources will be able to debate most of the day using just raw statistics taken. And such it cannot be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt (as is the requirement in the American Court Systems, right?) that mere gun ownership is the cause of violent crime; without influence from other factors like Society, Wealth, etc.. then I am of the opinion we should side on the side of more freedoms.. not less.

This goes back to the Franklin quote.. if, As a country, we are of the opinion we should be banning things, ANYTHING, merely because it spooks us - and thus making life more difficult, or hindering the rights of, the owners of that object.. then we have taken a seriously wrong turn somewhere.

I mean.. I can certainly see that some countries are overly happy with their choices so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

Obviously... Very biased.. but still shows that obviously the country isn't quite as happy as people point them out to be. This is the wiki article on the Tony Martin case.. has some added facts that the video, of course, doesn't show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Like the fact that Martin evidently hid the firearm after the incident.. and the burglars were attempting to flee when they were shot. I still think Martin got an entirely crap deal.. originally sentenced to life, later reduced to 8 years, while the two surviving burglars, with a history of crime, got less than 3.

How does that make sense?

More pro-gun propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT...eature=related

Who wants an "100% complete ban on guns?" Certainly not this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc06n...eature=related (notice how he has to interject the words "By Guns" in his little speech there.)

Hey,

I just got back and I see my last post created lots of fun fireworks. My assertion that I could go buy an assault riffle for a thousand dollars was a direct quote from a recent news broadcast. True, I am apparently partly wrong about these guns. I had heard long ago that it wasn't very hard to convert them to automatic. ( please note I'm not saying this is true) So given the above, I hope you can take back your challenge to have me go buy one, fatalsaint.

But this is only half of what I said in that post. I still just feel very uncomfortable with no background checks at the shows. So, I suppose now we will talk about the gun show thing.

I really regret that this thread became all about gun owner rights. I started it with a much broader topic about the things we could be doing to make ourselves safer here at home instead of spending huge amounts in these wars. I think it's actually the hard work of comprimise that is sometimes the most difficult. Where did our spirit of American brotherhood go? We all share this country and need to get along and I think part of that is realizing that most times getting along means comprimise.

In some ways, if we can do these things, we go a long way towards realizing that the government is not something to fear and be armed against, but something that is a tool we can use to work out our differences and yes, set policies and unfortunately, set limits that some are not happy with. But it seems we tend to feel the government is not ours. Like it belongs only to the powerful.
But I do think this thread is really a very good ilustration of how hard it can be. Admitedly, I didn't start it out well. I think some felt attacked. That didn't work to create a constructive thread. Oh well, I live and learn. Better luck next time.

In the end, though, the point is to be safe in order to live freely, right?

Oh, and learn more about our Nokias,

Neil

Just two quick things sungrove (don't take this post as argumentative.. not intended that way):

A) You shouldn't keep mentioning gun shows. It isn't "just" gun shows that you are referring to. When referring to that it would make more sense to say "Background checks on Face to Face gun sales." That's really where it lies.. Anyone who is not a FFL doesn't have to do a background check when selling a gun from inside their home, a gun show, or anywhere else for that matter. Gun shows are just one small part.

B) Would you petition to make background checks free? Essentially, right now, the BCI charges for every background check. Which just adds cost to me, the owner, to sell a gun I don't need/want anymore.

The other thing is.. I hope you realize that requiring a background check here.. is akin to requiring me to make sure you have a Valid Drive License, no DUI record, and are not planning to drink, and run a credit check .. before I can sell you a car.

It all of a sudden it becomes my responsibility to make sure you are a capable of owning any device that can create death.. that just makes a convoluted mess.

(Please note: My way around this is, when I had a gun to sell, I only sold to someone that had a valid CCW permit. That told me the background check had been done; without me having to pay for it - but that also means I had very little response to my add, and was harder to find a buyer. And I still am against gov regulation for it.)

ETA: Let me also add, that to your original intent, that there are things we could try to do here at home to make the great US a little safer. I can agree with that. I mean as I mentioned in the above post; the UK has had lower crime rates than the US for a very long time. They are apparently doing something right. But, studying the trends, the two countries are starting to meet in the middle somewheres.

As to your constant referrals to the wars.. well. I have a personal stake in that. I've been there, met those people, shook their hands and received their thanks for what we've done for them. Hugged their children and helped protect them against some seriously deranged people.. (I really don't think, even in a tyrannical gov situation, that I'd ever get to the point I could justify a car bomb in the middle of downtown with 1000's of my own people and maybe a dozen or less of the enemy? Very deranged.) So therefore I have a problem with the current mentality of just bugging out and leaving these people to die in a all out war between the several different factions, and creating a power vacuum to be filled by the next Saddam.

We should finish what we've started... that's my opinion. Even if the reasons for going in were suspect.. we have a responsibility to those people now. We should see to that.

Thanks for bringing this thread back on rails.
Though I find it interesting that while for me guns evoke feelings of fear and terror for a lot of people it actually means the opposite: safety.

I think its all about "separation" (not sure if this is the right word).
I mean: People tend to unite and feel one with each other within a group/country when there is a common enemy/other that everybody despises.
The last "other" for the US was the soviet union or "the communism", which died around 1990. After that there was no real "other" and the problems started.

Look at the action movies and TV-series.
In the middle of the last century, the enemy basically was the NAZI: Tall, blond, cruel, strong, emotionless and with a bad accent. Later it was replaced by the Russian: strong, cruel, emotionless and with a bad accent and now it often is the Arabian terrorist (strong, emotionless, cruel and with a bad accent).
Funny enough, the good guy in these shows usually share most of the attributes of the enemy. They too are strong, cruel and emotionless. The only thing they don't share is the accent.
The accent symbolizes difference/foreignness, thus separating good from evil (in tv).
But after the end of the cold war, this scheme doesn't work as well as it used to be. In recent movies often the enemy is within the own country: corruption, conspiracy or not so fast recognizable as the enemy.
While this usually makes for better plots, it might show a breakline in western societies. Its not that clear anymore whats wrong and right, good and evil, _us_ and _them_.

For me this whole terrorist thing is a powerful tool in the hands of governments. I'm not at all scared of terrorists, they pose a much smaller threat than alcohol, road traffic, cigarettes and guns for that matter ,-)
But with their help, governments all over the world (mainly in western countries) pass laws that really scare me.

I'm sorry to drag Godwin into this, but the same happened here in Germany 85 years ago. Economy was down, as was the mood, people felt threatened and no one knew where to go next. And there came this guy, telling everybody the Jews were a big threat. Sure they seem nice, but in the background they plot to harm the good German folks, I mean: Come on, they are _different_. (Jews=>Arabians/terrorists)
Then there was the small thing that Jews owned a lot of capital, banks, industry and the lot. And if the evil Jews plot against us, who can blaim us if we secure their property? (property->oil)
Some non-Jews started to oppose at this point, but opposition wasn't heard anymore ("who is not with us is against us"->"who is not with us is against us").
Media was used to spread a certain image. (propaganda->propaganda(FoxNews and the like))
Laws were made to keep any possible opposition in check: surveillance, special troops, special prisons, torture. ("emergency act", ...->"patriot act", ...)
And things started to get worse from there. (we know->we'll see)

I know that most of you think that what happened back then couldn't happen to you, because you are good and everybody knows the Germans are evil, but think again.
That's the same thing Germans thought of themselves at that time: "We have the smartest, most cultured people, we are the good guys, we are the "Superrace" and we need to help others to be as we are". (...->...)

And back then, those movements that led to Hitler and WW2 were also active in basically every other European state as well. If Germany wouldn't have existed, it would have started somewhere else 5 or 10 years later.

So, what I see is a horrifying amount of parallels between back then and now. And the US seem to take Germany's place in this one.

And what really is scary is that nobody seems to learn from history. One major point of the German "Grundgesetz" (=constitution) is to protect the citizens from its own government. But right now many of these safety belts are dissembled because of the danger of terrorists. There haven't been any kills due to terrorists in Germany for more than 15 years, but it still works and there is very little opposition yet. And the Allies from WW2 that back then made sure we had these safety checks in the constitution now even force us to tear them down while doing the same in their own countries.

Same in England: Come on, you probably all read Orwell's "1984", how come no one opposes all this surveillance ********??

I DON'T GET IT!

Sorry for this incoherent rant. i'll pour myself some coffee and hope I'm just paranoid and everything's alright...

A) Germans aren't evil =-\

B) I don't see a correlation between this and the holocaust. For one.. at least when I was there... I didn't see the US marching every last "evil" Muslim into a concentration camp to get gassed. I don't see where in history they show the "evil" jews blowing up driving airplanes or car bombs into the "German" stores..

Suicide Bombers and Extremists are exactly that.. extreme cases of a general public. They are about as sane as the Catholic Inquisition, and the Nazi's. (NOTE: Didn't say Germans.) One should not hold an entire civilization responsible for the irresponsible acts of a few... If they were - and if we were the Nazi's in the the great wars... we would have just nuked the entire Iraq country and been done with.

No American soldiers lives lost, No risk, no problem. Start over with a clean slate.. totally annihilate all Muslims; well - all people - in Iraq and be done with it. See?? Cost effective and American life effective. But no.. instead we are risking our soldiers to try and save the vast majority of locals in Iraq, and rebuilding them a government since we effectively demolished their current one - the one in which hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered annually due to one man's overly sensitive PMS fits.

I personally don't think I was a sailor of the Nazi's... but that's just me.

I don't say its exactly the same, but there are many parallels.
Nazi-Germany didn't do the equivalent of nuking someone. In fact they were rather careful at first.
First they "liberated" the mainly German-populated parts of Czechoslovakia and some other regions, who felt suppressed. Without weapons that is.
After that they invaded Poland. But that was OK, the polish relentlessly attacked the German border (which was fake attacks by NAZIs, but who knew back then).
At that point NAZI-Germany was befriended with the Soviets. Only after nobody could deny anymore whats going on, they tried to take them all at once.

But enough of that.
I agree that our governments right now are not reaching to conquer the world and they don't plan to extinct any race. Not even religion.
I'm not sure what their agenda is, other then benefiting the lobbying industrial interest groups but they sharpen the tools that any totalitarian regime needs (suppression, surveillance, fear) and I blame them for that.

I think they might feel pressed to do this to defend against their own people. The gap between rich and poor, powerful and helpless is getting bigger and bigger and as the powerful have no intention to change this, they start to fear the poor masses and try to keep them in check this way.
And even IF they all do work in our best interest, these tools that are formed now all over the world should never exist in a free country!