When debating guns, it seems impossible to not hear the saying, "Guns don't kill people." If you toss out a statistic about gun deaths, you will hear this retort.
I'm a gun owner. I own them simply because I come from a law enforcement family. I don't have any interest in them at all. Grew up around them. You point, they go bang. But that's not all that guns do, now is it?
Guns give people a sense of power. A command over many. They make men make rash decisions. They embolden people to do things out of arrogance and self-righteousness. If you were walking by a group of three young men whom were clearly out looking for a fight in a downtown area, you might decide to cross the street if you were unarmed. If you were armed, you might say,"Fuck it, I have a right to be here." and take on that path of resistance. A notable example of this being caught on video is the DC detective taking on a crowd for throwing snowballs. He drew his service weapon rather than walking or driving away. Link
There are other things that give people a sense of power and cause them to act as if human life doesn't matter. Cars. How many cases of road rage could we find? Cars are another thing that emboldens people to do stupid things. I had a guy attempt to run me down once while on a motorcycle. I waved him into a parking lot, got off the bike and he disappeared. As soon as I went to get back onto the road, he came at me. Being on a sport bike he had no chance and I was gone. But without a weapon, he wanted nothing to do with me. (Sremmed from him wanting me to pull out into the intersection that was blocked. Bad idea in the US, especially on a bike.) but you know what is rare... Murder in the first and second degree in cars. Killing someone in another car with the first car is difficult. We don't have enough interaction with pedestrians to get that provoked. Guns, however, allow that personal interaction along with the quick and easy solution that will give you that sense of power we have grown to love.
You can say that guns don't kill people because they are inanimate objects and be factually correct. What you ignore is that in a culture like ours where violence is regarded as being manly. Where winning a fight will get you patted on the back for years. Where people crave power over others from sports as a kid to watching movies and fantasizing yourself in the shoes of the successful violent character (Batman, Rambo, Kick Ass). Guns provide that sense of ability to easily win the fight and deliver justice when we feel wronged rather than letting the emotion settle. Gun ownership is the leading cause of homocide, 2 to 1. Nothing else compares.
We have a right to guns in the US. I don't deny that. But denying the reality that without guns we would not have nearly the same number of murders is denying reality. Without guns, people would take that extra second to think rather than simply react. There are anecdotal cases where the right gun owner wins and yeah, let's write that down. But don't forget that each year, there are 10,000 other cases where the outcome didn't have to be what it is. Guns cause people to act in ways that they wouldn't normally act. This is why I reject the claim that "Guns Don't Kill People".
Yes, "the good ole west" - I was being ironic. I know the US history well and I understand the very reasons that you have so many guns around and why your gun laws are so unrestricted. I'm just saying that your society would be better off without the presence and fear of guns. I have no hope nor expectation that the gun politics in the US will change for the better in the future. On the other hand, even America is beginning to realise that things has to change in order to improve the current state of affairs.
I'm not sure about America realizing it needs change, if current policies are continued to be followed by this government (cutting support to the public and not creating jobs) it's going to get worse before it get's better.
Our police are trained as para military, if you look at Seattle police force, there is a feeling by the police they have the right to use excessive force with the no right of the public to question or sue.
The cops up here have committed cold-blooded murder.
Worse, because they're the police, they are rarely (if ever) brought to any kind of justice.
I find it puzzling and ironic that your argument is based on the need to protect yourself against the police - the very force supposed to protect citizens. Here the police is the very reason we do not need guns - they have guns so that we do not need to. We rarely experience the kind of police brutality and corruption as seen in the US. We trust our police. You need to fix your police.
are you serious lol - the police force is not to protect citizens , it's to uphold government laws and create revenue for the states.
Bullshit. How many LEOs have you gotten to know over the past 10 or 20 years? I've known many--as students, as friends, and as sources for research.
Most police officers and sheriffs and troopers are well trained and conscientious. And they take their public role seriously. Police protect people in part by enforcing the laws that the people themselves have put in place legislatively to ensure the welfare of everyone.
Just because they might care about helping people doesn't mean their primary function is to serve the people.
If the laws changed to infringe further on the rights of the citizens by way of legislation , then the officers would have to enforce it. Their primary role is to enforce the laws, not to protect citizens.
Of course their primary function is to serve the people. They are paid by the people, and they are supervised by public officials who are accountable to the people and to the people's representatives.
Laws are not put in place "to infringe ... on the rights of the citizens." Laws are put in place through deliberation, after debate and public comment, to enhance or to protect the welfare of everyone. Laws guarantee rights, and laws also circumscribe some rights (the right to free speech, for example) for the good of all. Police officers and prosecutors enforce the laws (judiciously, most of the time) because that's what the people who hired and trained them (namely, the public) expects. That's their central role. They are not oppressors or tyrants or bullies. There are plenty of bad cops and corrupt politicians, of course, but for the most part legislation and law enforcement--on the state and local levels, certainly--works gratifyingly well.
Not to sound like a total prick , but the keyword is that you 'considered' Russian Roulette. You didn't 'consider' overdosing , cutting , hanging or poisoning ... you actually did those.
Sticking a gun into your mouth and pulling the trigger knowing the blood will plaster on the wall is a sick and eerie feeling people get ... even though you're dead a lot of people wouldn't want to leave such a messy ending.
As for children playing with them , they need to be educated as to what it is they are playing with. They need to see it live in action and to see what devastation it can cause. Take the child to a gun range and show them what happens when you shoot a pumpkin with it. They will be less likely to play with it after that.
Once every gun is vaporized on the entire planet , then I might consider giving up my right to own one. The government and the armies will still have them ... so will other countries if they wish to invade the USA for whatever reason.
Police officers are the least of our worries if a navy Seal team comes knocking on your door , asking you if you support the current president or the current religious demagogue.