@Benjamin628

I know I read an article about that. As I said there is no national minimum wage, minimum wages may or may not be defined by each profession and sector.


@Imperator

No one was arguing that they had a small ammount of guns. I was just refuting the argument that gun control makes the country unsafe. Germany and France for example have restrictive gun laws, but gvt hasn't necessarily taken away guns from owners when the law become more severe.

Also, saying that Guns aren't as deadly because some of those gun related deaths aren't murders is a non-sense. It just proves furthermore the point that the general population shouldn't be able to carry guns because they're not responsible enough to have them. And that's my point. You can't have shitty education levels, a rampant poverty and offer guns to everyone because it "makes people safer", because the truth is that it won't.

People love to trow away data about countries who have worst crime rates then the US and still have gun laws and think that it proves anything. You fail to point out how shitty life conditions on those are, and that maybe, just maybe, guns were outlawed to try and fight against the crime problem.

Tunisia: 0.1 guns per 100 people => I seriously doubt this data is correct right now after the lybian civil war, but I'll point out that the country is getting severly touched by islamic terrorism.
Ghana, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Rwanda => All of these countries suffer with misery, broken to non-existent states, most had civil wars on a near past and the ruler of the country is a mercyless dictator. I will again question if there's only that many guns per capita on these countries.
North Korea => That's a fucking totalitarian regime of the hitler/stalin style stuff. It shouldn't even be on this list... Also, North Korea has a 308.5 soldiers (both reserve and active) per 1000 population, so I'm pretty sure there's more guns per 100 people then you said.

I will however ask if you used data on guns owned just by civilians or the total data including gvt forces. Because if you did the second, there's no way any of it is true.

Oh, actually I see that you got your data from wikipedia, so I'll use the same data to give counter examples.

Serbia has 69.7 guns per 100 people
Yemen has 54.8 guns per 100 people
Iraq has 34.2 guns per 100 people

All these guns sure keep those countries safer.


Singapore has 0.5 guns per 100 people
Japan has 0.6 guns per 100 people
South Korea has 1.1 guns per 100 people

OMG, those countries are so unsafe, I can't even walk on the street without having a chance at getting killed at any moment!


And now, you can go and tell me that there's way more to put into account for the safety of those countries, but again, does it matter?


PS: I still doubt that the data used from wikipedia is totally accurate. I really think that it does at least excludes guns owned by gvt forces, and is probably highly unrepresentative of some countries reality due to the fact that this survey was made in 2007.

Edited 4/19/2016 15:25:45

Serbia has 69.7 guns per 100 people
Yemen has 54.8 guns per 100 people
Iraq has 34.2 guns per 100 people

All these guns sure keep those countries safer.

Yemen and Iraq are in the middle of civil wars right now, so It's pretty much an apples to oranges comparison to compare violence in countries that are in wartime to that of countries that are at peace.

Serbia actually has a relatively low rate of gun violence, 3.49 deaths per 100,000 people, which is 0.61 from homicides and 2.53 from suicides and accidental deaths. This is about on par with finland in terms of international comparisons.

Singapore has 0.5 guns per 100 people
Japan has 0.6 guns per 100 people
South Korea has 1.1 guns per 100 people

OMG, those countries are so unsafe, I can't even walk on the street without having a chance at getting killed at any moment!

It seems to be a cultural trend in far eastern countries to have basically no guns (See this image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svg), and it doesn't seem to have any effect on pretty much anything either way; On the one hand, you have crazy dictatorships like China, Vietnam, and North korea, and on the other you have stable democracies like Japan and south korea, all unaffected by their lack of guns.

However, I think it's worth pointing out that despite their lack of guns, South Korea, Sri lanka, Nepal, Kazakhstan, India, Turkmenistan, Japan, and Bhutan all manage to rank in the top 20 for suicide rates, ranging from 17.8-28.9 suicides per 100,000 people, which makes the 3.4 per 100,000 homicides from US guns per year seem pretty insignificant.

Edited 4/19/2016 16:12:23

And now, you can go and tell me that there's way more to put into account for the safety of those countries, but again, does it matter?

As I said, there's much more to put into account then just those rates. Read again my statement if needed.

Also, maybe, just maybe, civil wars broke out soo easily because of the huge ammount of guns there was already in circulation.


In the suicide case, guns alone aren't the only way to suicide yourself. But they make the task way easier to perform. I also find it interesting that these countries have a so high suicide rate, I've never got good explanations for this trend in asian nations other then Japan and South Korea (I've read an article on the last ones saying that it was related to a cultural as well as harsh working patterns).


Anyways, the biggest arguments to have everyone armed on the country is:
=> That it makes the country safer, which is untrue, safety does not depend on how many people are armed on the country, but it's rather a very complex problem that can't be solved by distributing guns to everyone.
=> That it keeps the country democratic and free, many countries have low gun rates or restrictive gun laws, and they're still democratic. Plus you won't prevent a military coup with your guns if your army has tanks and nukes. Btw saying that we should distribute those weapons to militias in order to keep the country from this threat isn't a good solution for many obvious reasons.


So based on these arguments, guns are useless both to protect freedom and keep the country safer. Now I'll tell you that guns are liberticide. Why do guns take away people's freedom? Because of the abuse on their use. On my view the liberty of a person shall be total unless this liberty suppresses another person freedom. Therefore everytime we have a mass shooting, people are losing their liberty of not being killed at school, colleges and public places.

Guns will also be a problem when the economy and basic structures of a country start to fall apart, and people go back to the state of nature where it's a basic free-for-all like we've seen in so many countries like Lybia, Syria or Irak. They become then the only tool of power common people have, and it might be used to supress people's rights.


So, I'll tell you that, is it worth it to have guns under those conditions? Because one, they don't serve the purpose they're intended to serve, and they might become really dangerous in some situations.

Edited 4/19/2016 16:25:15

As I said, there's much more to put into account then just those rates. Read again my statement if needed.

Also, maybe, just maybe, civil wars broke out soo easily because of the huge ammount of guns there was already in circulation.

The civil wars broke out because of Ideological extremism. If they didn't have guns, they would be fought using Spears, swords, and bows, and in fact from this perspective, guns saved lives by shortening the war.

Practically every country has had civil wars, even big ones like China and the US, and they're always caused by extremism.

In the suicide case, guns alone aren't the only way to suicide yourself. But they make the task way easier to perform. I also find it interesting that these countries have a so high suicide rate, I've never got good explanations for this trend in asian nations other then Japan and South Korea (I've read an article on the last ones saying that it was related to a cultural as well as harsh working patterns).

Is there any point to this paragraph, or are you just saying that you have no clue what's going on?

So based on these arguments, guns are useless both to protect freedom and keep the country safer. Now I'll tell you that guns are liberticide. Why do guns take away people's freedom? Because of the abuse on their use. On my view the liberty of a person shall be total unless this liberty suppresses another person freedom. Therefore everytime we have a mass shooting, people are losing their liberty of not being killed at school, colleges and public places.

I'm sick of hearing people say stuff like this when they refuse to apply this logic to bigger problems, such as abortion, which I'm willing to bet you're completely hypocritically in favor of.

So, the 699,202 homicides from abortion in 2012 are no problem, but the 8,855 gun homicides in 2012 are the end of the world, in fact so much that guns should be banned.

Yes, it takes away people's liberty to be killed. This is obvious, but this isn't really an argument that you're in a position to make.

The point is, If you're going to be pro-life, be pro-life, don't be anti-gun and anti-life.

Edited 4/19/2016 16:45:20

The civil wars broke out because of Ideological extremism. If they didn't have guns, they would be fought using Spears, swords, and bows, and in fact from this perspective, guns saved lives by shortening the war.

Nope lol. Civil wars and war in general was way less fatal when fought with spears, swords and bows lol... If ideology is the reason for war, guns are the tools upon which one can enforce his doctrines.

Is there any point to this paragraph, or are you just saying that you have no clue what's going on?

It was probably a bad separated paragraph, the first phrase of it is where I defend a point. The second part is me wondering about it, and maybe waiting for someone to come and answer that.


Abortion on itself is another hard point you can discuss about. I'm in favour of choice, but I won't explain why I consider it's not that much of a liberticide thing to having an abortion, it would derail the thread and need me to make a huge text on it. But I will explain my position on it another time, maybe I'll make a new thread for it on the next few days.

although i dont like going to school myself , denying kids their most basic right is f'ed up

As I assumed you were. All I have to say is, if you're going to make a pro-lief argument, you'd better be prepared to be actually pro-life.

Juq give your source first before giving random figures as it is far from being accurate, and last but not least, your high figure is easy to explain: I know many people in France that have a gun (or more) in their home, see my family: my grandfather, my uncles, etc, they all hold a rifle in their home for hunting (since it is a national sport in the place I am from alongside fishing), this factor could alone explain why there is those hypothetical 17 million guns in France (which aren't illegal at all as I will show you just below)

Curb your enthusiasm, here it's. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france

You are also confirming what I say about gun registration and how it's not working very well in France.

But anyhow, I am saying gun bans won't work for most countries, so don't ban guns.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:14:09

As I assumed you were. All I have to say is, if you're going to make a pro-lief argument, you'd better be prepared to be actually pro-life.

If you're actually pro-life, then you better be prepared to wear gas masks for the list of your life, so that you don't kill innocent dust mites by breathing them, and be vegetarian, and never cut grass.

^lol

But anyhow, I am saying gun bans won't work for most countries, so don't ban guns.

I don't defend the full banning of guns owned by civilians on a short term measure. It might not even be possible to do that on a way I'd fully support, but any sort of actual gun laws the US posseses or any candidate for the presidential elections defends, I am more radical.

@Imperator
So, either I am a pro-life because I don't want to see innocents killed by guns sold to irresponsible people, or you are because you think abortion should be outlawed. Either way, under your definition, none of us is pro-life.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:22:29

If you're actually pro-life, then you better be prepared to wear gas masks for the list of your life, so that you don't kill innocent dust mites by breathing them, and be vegetarian, and never cut grass.

That's ridiculous, why would I do that?

So, either I am a pro-life because I don't want to see innocents killed by guns sold to irresponsible people, or you are because you think abortion should be outlawed. Either way, under your definition, none of us is pro-life.

No, you're not pro-life, you're just using pro-life arguments ("It's a violation of liberty to be killed") to justify your anti-liberty positions on Gun Control.

To Be perfectly clear: Yes, it is a violation of rights to be killed, and it is also a violation of rights to take away guns from tens or hundreds of millions of americans and use the excuse that 8 thousand people are killed each year by these hundreds of millions of guns. It is also pretty dumb if you are pro-life to focus your efforts on eight thousand lives rather than on around seven hundred thousand.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:36:48

I don't defend the full banning of guns owned by civilians on a short term measure. It might not even be possible to do that on a way I'd fully support, but any sort of actual gun laws the US posseses or any candidate for the presidential elections defends, I am more radical.

I don't think there should be no checks or regulation, but make it so that the normal fellow can get a gun if one wants. No violent criminal past or madness or anything like that, very restricted selling to those folk.

That's ridiculous, why would I do that?

You're pro-life, right?

Seriously, I don't think (most) anyone disagrees that a fellow's life is very valuable.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:30:06

I don't think there should be no checks or regulation, but make it so that the normal fellow can get a gun if one wants. No violent criminal past or madness or anything like that, very restricted selling to those folk.

This already happens in the US; if you're a convicted felon, you can't buy any guns.

You're pro-life, right?

Seriously, I don't think (most) anyone disagrees that a fellow's life is very valuable.

Pro-life doesn't mean that you disagree with killing plants, that's called vegan or something. The term "pro-life" refers specifically to human life.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:33:37

i am not against guns i am for it but i think that the laws right now are fine and nothing needs to be changed

Why do we need extortion and inflation to pay for the army, for the defense industry, for bankrupted banks or for intelligence agencies?

A state should have higher priorities like improving its welfare system and education, more than anything else. Something that will not happen at all with people like Cruz, the Donald or even the Klington.

The number one priority for a state: Not existing.

Also are you just retarded? You know I am against intelligence agencies, warring militaries and socialism/corporatism. Stop trying to get the moral high ground in a thread by accusing me of supporting something I am clearly against.

Edited 4/19/2016 21:59:22

The number one priority for a state: Not existing.

Or to make sure anarchy doesn't happen.

Anarchy = Without rulers

Nothing bad about that.

Pro-life doesn't mean that you disagree with killing plants, that's called vegan or something. The term "pro-life" refers specifically to human life.

For life means you're for life. You don't get to be picky about these things when using such a phrase, maybe you should say for-human-life.

@Major General Smedley Butler

Anarchy isn't preferable to government. There is something called state of nature which is explained very well by Hobbes.

Plus, anarchy would be useless, history has showed us that whenever there's a lack of leadership in a said place, it will inevitably end in someone becoming a leader. That's pretty much how human societies work... Your idea fails just like communism do, without a central government, it is inevitable that someone will raise to become the "leader of the tribe".


@Imperator

This already happens in the US; if you're a convicted felon, you can't buy any guns.

It's not like you can't still get guns in a legal way even if you are a convicted felon by exploiting loop holes eh? Plus, the supply in guns is so high on the country, that it's really easy to acquire one in an ilegal way.

Pro-life doesn't mean that you disagree with killing plants, that's called vegan or something. The term "pro-life" refers specifically to human life.

What? No one advocates against killing plants because they're living things lol... And if someone did that, I'm pretty sure they'd be dead by the end of the week. Vegans are against eating animal derivates. Well, I'm getting out of the point here.


I'll make a thread about abortion maybe tomorrow, so we can discuss that in detail.