Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

You are wrong.
ANYTHING you say will be used against you. Time and time again officers use "hello" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over" as excuse for escalation, claiming aggressive or impaired demeanor.

Rights only exist if exercised. They can and should be applied at all times. If they can only be invoked when one is guilty, then exercising them IS an indication of guilt, so that's not how they work.

She clearly told them what she was doing, there was no bank robbery, and she didn't look comatose or impaired.

This is nothing like your douchbag friends. They intentionally created suspicion, she stood on her right to avoid any suggestion of suspicion, and was arrested for contempt of cop plain and simple. There is no charge of "won't answer incriminating questioning"....not in America, maybe in China and North Korea.

Again, you show you simply don't understand legal rights....are you a cop?

So, you think it's proper to be arrested on suspicion of......nothing....based on a cop's biased judgement on how you look, but with ZERO crime committed?!? I'm incredibly glad you aren't a judge.

The really sad part is, this woman may get more for this violation than the family of the black man murdered for following officer's directions to get his ID....they got $3 million, but she's a white lawyer, so may fare far better in our system.

Ha! It's great when you foil a robbery by not noticing it! Good job.

Yikes! We're still taxed as if we were worth $125k, and at only 1%. We don't live in city or even town limits, so our tax rates are low. Willow says we're worth over $500k now, so I hope they don't catch on and reevaluate us any time soon. I can't afford for our taxes to quadruple.

Your video, The Robbery, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Lochte sounds like a kid scrambling after his mother caught him in a lie—and that might not be far from the truth. The story of Lochte’s alleged robbery first emerged on Sunday, when his mother, Ileana, told media that her son had been held up at gunpoint." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/18/ryan-lochte-s-mom-isn-t-helping-with-his-rio-olympics-robbery-story.html

Sounds like when it first came out it was squashed as untrue until his mom contacted media with his story. http://qz.com/761591/a-cautionary-tale-via-ryan-lochte-dont-tell-your-mom-you-were-robbed-when-you-were-really-just-partying/

WTF!? You lose for being happy you won?!? I think they should have gone Attila on them, since they'll be thrown out of the sport anyway. Make the next judges think twice before pulling that crap, and remove those judges from sports permanently. I would have attacked with my whole being if they pulled that on my student, to the death. After all, it is their life and livelihood.
Also, the announcer can eat a dick. What BS he was spouting.
The competitor better refuse to accept the win...he lost fair and square...that was a robbery right there.

That was impressive as ATM robberies go.

Bob you still haven't thought this idea through any further, its a terrible idea. I'll explain why but its probably going to be a bit long but bear with me and you'll understand why you are 'dead' wrong.

So "Bob's Law" is now in effect, Mr Bandito is in the back of a Taxi committing an armed robbery demanding the taxi driver hand over his money and valuables. Mr Bandito notices that the taxi driver has been getting looks at him in the rear view mirror. While the driver is nervously fumbling and trying to pull out the wallet he is sitting on in his back pocket, it crosses Mr Bandito's mind that "Bob's Law" is in effect and as soon as the driver hands him the wallet over Mr Bandito shoots and kills the taxi driver.

Mr Bandito did this because the punishment (death) is the same for robbing the driver as it is for murdering the driver. An alive taxi driver would make it easier for the police to catch him and Mr Bandito is of the same propensity as the folks that passed this law and so to him it now makes sense to kill all witnesses of an armed robbery as procedure, as the penalty is the same either way.

Sorry, tongue in cheek joke from American culture. People will complain when someone is breaking the law (a minor robbery, a traffic violation, etc) that "you can never find a cop when you want one"...

well, obviously, this officer was right where he was supposed to be. And, as noted above, this thief has some of the most abysmal situational awareness perhaps ever.

Does that help explain the American humor?

1. You end up with a lot of armed robbery in a society with a lot of guns. Just sayin'.

2. You're suddenly concerned with society? You do understand that is socialism right?

3. Most of the reason why crime in the US is so high stems back to poor socio-economic conditions for certain racial groups. If you care so much about society, ideally you want to fix the underlying reason why people end up committing crime rather than shooting everyone who sticks someone up...

I just saying society does not need to have armed robbery in society. Those willing to rob this way should be put down. Why give this guy 5 years for armed robbery just to have him become more harden and more dangerous to society. Not to mention the waste on taxpayers to support this dangerous guy by housing him in jail for decades to come.

TV hosts not composed during interview with robbery heroes has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Aussie blokes thwart thieves during robbery has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Congratulations! Your comment on Aussie blokes thwart thieves during robbery has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Aussie blokes thwart thieves during robbery, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.