Spoken like an American who's never left his country, or even flown on an airplane. I live in a gun-free country, and it's quite peaceful, completely unlike America with all its mass shootings.
You've probably never been to America or shot a gun. I have been abroad to some of the most gun-free places in the world and I'm quite pleased with how we live in the US. There aren't as many shootings as the media would have you believe. The people at the top who cry about guns really just want you to be a helpless sheep. They have an imperative which is to maintain power, even if it costs you your life.
> There aren't as many shootings as the media would have you believe
Regardless of the media (and I agree TV news amplify all this stuff which is why we don't even have TV in our house), the statistics (not generated by the media) show much, much higher rates of homocide, both by individuals and police officers, in the US than any other industrialized country.
Regardless of you how you personally feel, the US is inherently statistically unsafe compared to other industrialized nations, especially wealthier ones like Japan, Switzerland, the Nordic countries, etc.
>Regardless of you how you personally feel, the US is inherently statistically unsafe compared to other industrialized nations, especially wealthier ones like Japan, Switzerland, the Nordic countries, etc.
That may be but I don't think homicide is common in the US, even if it is more frequent than elsewhere. 5 in 100k is not common. I don't believe guns are to blame. I also think there are other cultural factors in play as the US is very culturally diverse compared to Nordic countries or Japan. I would be interested to know the number and severity of drug addictions per capita before considering that.
Even reducing my risk of homicide from 5 in 100k to zero would not change my mind about guns. We need them to defend against all aggressors, even government actors. The police do not have a duty to protect you in the US, and even if they did they cannot be everywhere. People are quick to ridicule the idea that guns can protect you against the government these days but the logic is totally sound and has been proven again and again throughout history.
> People are quick to ridicule the idea that guns can protect you against the government these days
I think what happened in Waco TX showed that having a bunch of guns to protect yourself from the government is 1) ineffective, and 2) a really bad idea.
It made sense in the 1700s but those were different times.
Obviously one family or small group camping on their property cannot stand up to a seige by the government. But has there ever been a revolution without guns since they became common? You can hardly dream of any kind of resistance against real tyranny without guns. It is foolish to think that tyranny is a thing of the past, and that guns might not defend you or at least aid your escape from such a government. People are fighting tyranny around the world right now with guns.
I agree the US is not immune to tyranny—one need look no further than Trump for that , though thankfully the checks and balances of democracy held. My point is that 200 years ago civilians with guns could stand up to a tyrannical government as there wasn’t much else more advanced weaponry that would give the gov an unassailable advantage. Civilians would have no hope of a chance today regardless of how many guns they had. So the main original purpose of the 2A, which was necessary at the time, is no longer feasible. All that remains are the downsides of the 2A.
