Not to say that having less gun deaths than Columbia shouldn't be a source of national pride, but when you compare US gun deaths to more culturally/politically/economically similar countries, these gun industry arguments don't sound all that sane or reasonable.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif

There is always someone lower on the totem pole to compare yourself favorably with. Why not look upwards towards those who outperform you instead?

^ ^ ^ Look also to the individual histories of these countries as well, and perhaps less loaded words (sane, reasonable) for indignant retort-Look upwards from a perspective of recent history with governments wielding enormous power and influence over her citizens with confiscation of or outright outlawing of all firearms soon to follow.

Why do the "individual histories" of these countries only come into play now that you are on the defensive? Why is my sarcastic use of loaded terms less acceptable than your sincere use of loaded terms?

Our government will never outlaw all firearms in the same way the Japan's government will never outlaw all rice. Those kinds of stories are made to frighten Texans into voting for Republicans.

This is nothing personal against the poster, but that girl is just terrible. I felt like I was watching a weather report from elementary school.

I get the feeling a brother or husband put her up to this. She doesn't sound like she's speaking her own thoughts.

Imagine that, we feel like that reading the banter on this issue here-

Defending 11k dead people yearly by comparing it to accidental deaths is retarded to the core. Yeah, compare murder rates to third world countries...that'll help.

total straw man.
and her presentation is quite bland.
that being said:

assault rifles were banned in 1986 yet people can still get a hold of them if they really want.so how is more stringent gun control going to affect the sale and possession of assault rifles?

furthermore,how is putting stricter rules going to change anything with people who are already in compliance?

if the argument was directed at the NRA,which is just a powerful lobby for gun manufacturers hiding behind the second amendment,then i would be more prone to side with you folks...but the argument (appears to me anyways) is directed at the private citizen,who is already in compliance.

i hate to go all blankfist on you guys but that smacks of statism.

or is that a reality you all are comfortable with?
that the only people armed in this country would be police and military.

and i am not just referring to this thread but including almost every argument i have seen lately.
am i misunderstanding the argument?

Ooooooooo....husband and wife down vote, you kids must feel veeeery strongly concerning the existence of owie-things and the right to arm bears.

Moving this video to chingalera's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote the discussion

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by enoch.

Still waiting for the facts?, its been nothing more than arguments from authority & the gun deaths chart is pure bogus, I.E. bee stings annually kill more US citizens than terrorism thus terrorism is not as important as stopping people getting stung straw-man argument. furthermore, alcohol is regulated, cars are regulated even medical practitioners are licenced - if you went into surgery knowing that your doctor may be one of 40% of unregistered practitioners would you feel safe in that knowledge?.

Here is how easy it is to twist this logic to suit your claim: Since the war began in Iraq there has been 4488 U.S. causalities, comparing this to 11,000 annual gun death's in the U.S. PROVES that being at war is LESS DANGEROUS than merely being at home. This example is how correlation does not equal causation (& if this girl in the video is indeed a psychologist she should know this).

Maybe one aspect of the Mexican gun rate is also the fact that the U.S. with 'the 'Fast & Furious law' actually allowed the trafficing of guns from the United States into Mexico right into the hands of drug gangs in the hopes of stopping the cartels. (But did she mention that?).

What are the stats for mass homicides?, rather than suicides compared to other countries?. and in one breath the speaker said that a gun is the most effective way of killing yourself, and later that regardless of guns the person will find a way to kill themselves regardless of guns which she just stated were the most effective other than hanging or jumping from a height. (& Japan is a collectivist culture with a high population, where the individual is expected to look after their entire family & the government is expected to ensure public safety hence strict gun laws - so it may in fact be due to feelings of being ashamed culturally rather than seeking attention & fame as in individualistic cultures like America.

a gun is not a 'tool', it's a weapon - it has no other purpose than to kill. it's like saying a harpoon is a 'tool'.

No-one is saying its just about A) whether being allowed to own a gun B) or not. it's about as stated in the opening of this video as stated in the 2nd amendment 'A well REGULATED militia or marketplace of guns' and the American gun lobby is definitely not said anything about wanting to strengthen the gun-laws I.E. waiting times, background checks, sales at gun-shows etc.

This video is wrong in all these areas listed from start to finish it has been nothing but misrepresentation calling them facts.

I agree, and it goes beyond statistics and more to the core ideals that make a country. Fact is, even if I showed you clear evidence that soda pop basically kills people in the long run, that it has no redeemable value and is responsible for 10x the health related problems as guns, that still is absolutely no justification for passing laws about soda consumption.

The rule of law by statistical analysis and utopian/utilitarian calculus is very troubling to me. And while my personal decisions for my own well being use a form of this model, to start making laws based on this very relative and personal framework would be a travesty, and it is seemingly the only model I see used when talking about gun control both for and against.

It turns out, having the freest society might also be the most dangerous...but so the fuck what. What if it turned out that theocratic dictatorship results in the least amount of civilian deaths from guns, shall we burn down the vestibules of liberty and freedom for a single data point of valuation. Most arguments both for and against gun control come from this kind of marginal, statistical methodology that I find appalling in a discussion over laws.

I was trying to have a conversation with you Chogs, but you seem more interested in taunting gwiz and Lann. We haven't had a good debate in ages. Let's have a little back and forth if you feel up to it. I know you tend to get very emotional on this issue, so if you think you might have problems keeping your cool, we don't have to.

Here's a starting point if you like (to be read in a spirited but not hostile tone):

The government will never turn tyrannical and confiscate all guns. That is one of many right wing fantasies you have errantly bought into. If you and other right wing gun lovers tried to stage a coup against the strongest military in history of the world, you would lose, and lose badly. tl;dr Don't bring a gun to a tank fight. Another point of delusion seems to be that you think your country-fried junta would be viewed by Americans as heroic rather than just plain fascist.

Banning guns won't stop criminals from having them, just like banning drugs hasn't stopped junkies from getting them or dealers from selling them. Also, remember the prohibition? Yeah, that definitely made alcohol disappear from the U.S.! Oh wait, no it didn't. It just gave criminals more money and power because they controlled it.

If you're going to argue that guns should be banned, you should also argue that drugs, alcohol and cigarettes should be banned. After all, those three things are each responsible for more deaths than firearms are. Sadly, as history has proven, banning something doesn't make it disappear. It just ensures that criminals control it.

@enoch

The problem with the gun control debate is that both options are authoritarian. Which do you prefer, the government having the power to limit your access to guns, or individuals having the power to easily end your life at will? It's a lose/lose proposition from that POV.

After a gun enthusiast massacred 35 people in Australia in 1996, the government got serious about gun reform. They enacted strict gun control measures and gun homicides dropped 59% over the course of 10 years. In the decade before gun reform, they suffered 11 gun rampages; they have not suffered another gun rampage since.

In your opinion, what is the downside of only police and military having weapons? (for the sake of argument, let's assume that hunting weapons remain legal, because their main function is not to end human life.)

Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

In his defense, I wouldn't ever rule out the possibility that our gov't could ever become tyrannical. It's just not likely. That and there are going to be a huge number of signs leading up to it and "taking away guns" is not one of them. It's irrelevant because in either case it doesn't change the fact that if the government ever truly did become tyrannical, in order to successfully revolt against it you're going to need a HELL of a lot more than just some assault rifles to overthrow a government gone bad. You're going to need 1) popular support, 2) military defections/support to your side to provide training/support/supplies. In this age, intel and cyber warfare is going to be as valuable if not more valuable than bullets.

I'm sorry, but this romantic myth of a bunch of "patriotic" militia groups rising up armed to overthrow a modern government armed only with a small arsenal of weapons is just that...a stupid myth. News flash, Red Dawn was just a movie, a fictional story, not a how-to manual. You're going to need a hell of a lot more than a 2nd Amendment to overthrow a government in this age.

But yeah, going back to the original argument. It's not impossible, but the idea that gov't is going to go tyrannical is just as ridiculous. Losing an election is not the same as having a tyrannical gov't When we stop having elections, then come talk to me. A lot of shit has to happen in order for gov't to become truly tyrannical and your guy not winning the election isn't one of them. Taxes being raised is not tyrannical gov't.

Nazi Germany - the modern poster child for tyrannical government - actually made it easier for right wingers to get guns*, while making it illegal for Jewish people to own guns. Remember that white right wing nationalist were not oppressed by Hitler. Quite to the contrary, they were emboldened and deified (as the master race) by Naziism. When Germany went Nazi, angry right wing gun owners were in the drivers seat.

If you want to change the government, put down your guns and write a song or a poem. Organize a march on the capital. Stage a hunger strike. Peacefully lock arms and allow the fascists to spray you with firehoses while the rest of the world looks on with disgust.

Violence begets violence.

Source: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts in this blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

@dystopianfutetoday
excellent question and is exactly where the discussion should be.

understand i am not against regulations i.e:background checks,licenses etc etc
i also think a gun safety course should be mandatory.responsible gun safety is just being a good citizen and neighbor.

have a mental illness with a record of violence? sorry.no guns for you.
convicted of a violent crime? no guns for you either.
but these regulations are already in place and responsible gun owners are..well...responsible.

so where is the argument REALLY centered?
unregulated .or more accurately put: weakly regulated gun shows and who benefits from these gun shows? gun manufacturers.
and where do they get their political clout? NRA.where those who are already blocked from gun purchase can skirt the system and the NRA can hide behind the second amendment.

that sound like a fairly accurate assesment?

now..onto your direct question on the downside of only the police and military being armed.
simply put: i do not trust authority or to be more precise,i do not trust power because power begets more power and seeks only to retain its own power which will always lead to you losing your power of self determination in the end.

america was never designed to have a standing army and their are articles that espouse the ending of the republic if we tried.here we are going on 60 years with a standing army.how is that working out for us?

bush had his illegal wars and surveillence and obama has his assasinations.

the police,which was born from the old town sheriffs were put in place to enforce this new and noble idea america had "all equal under law".a local citizenry trained to enforce the law and protect this "property ownership" another new and novel approach to society.

what do we have now?
defense money being spent on SWAT teams who now have high powered assault weapons and tanks...TANKS!..FFS.

do i really have to make a list?
waco
ruby ridge
the list is not short.

do you see where i am going with this?
i am not speaking about right and wrong.
i am pointing to the hypocrisy.
this is about elementary morality.
i totally agree with you that violence begets violence but if we are going to take away peoples right to own guns then we need to take them away from the police as well.

because just as some seriously damaged people have wrought death and suffering,so to has our very own government officials.
having the power of the government behind their actions does NOT make it more morally acceptable.

on a personal note i find the politicizing of the sandy hook school shooting so fucking despicable and grotesque that i literally shake with rage.this goes out to both sides of this political whoring.
the NRA can go fuck itself with a dirty razor-bladed dildo and the tree-hugging,pussified everybody-wants-to-bugger-my-lil-jonny scaredy cats can go fuck off as well.

i do not carry a gun nor am i interesting in owning one but i will fight for your right to own one.they are a weapon and as such should be monitored and regulated,but they should not be banned due to a giant fear storm and an over-abundance of "what if" pontificating.

who wants to live in a minority report world?not me.
most gun owners are responsible.
most police are good at what they do.
do not let the statistics arguments allow you to give up more of your rights.

but if we are going to protest i will be there with not a single weapon on me.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Krupo.

NRA thinktank presentation, so not much of value here, but it was interesting to see a lot of the constitutional arguments for in one spot.

i like turtles.