For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
Your government kidnaps, tortures, makes action against human rights, but yet:So when do you stand up and fight? When it is you that get kidnapped and tortured, not some random stranger?

That Rome could be invaded by other peoples was a symptom of the fall, not the cause. Rome fell because of political reasons. Guns won't help there.

Of course, they are unarmed and have no other chance than to run away. You are totally safe.
A criminal with a weapon will not do the same, he will charge you, he will shoot at you, he will try to kill you. Do you really think the situation is the same?

So basically you say: the police needs training for the case that armed civilians without training aren't available.
Why do policemen need training, but civilians don't?

They wouldn't have carried them illegally if they wouldn't be able to get them in the first place.

Actually, no it doesn't explain that. In countries with gun control the citizens are also not allowed to carry guns around, so the bad guys have the same situation as in your country, were you can't carry your weapons to every place, but nonetheless is the crime rate with guns involved in your country much higher than in any other western country with gun control.

Or more people would get shot, including the "defender", because the "defender" is untrained and can't handle the situation properly. Just owning a gun does not give you magically the ability to do that, extensive training does.
I have seen many stories that go like this: "There was this man with his legally purchased weapons and he shot down innocent children and other civilians."
Why does your story count as argument against gun control, but the other story does not count as argument for gun control?

I want just to point out how silly you are. How can you say that a gun is a LIFE SAVER DEVICE it's just ridiculous to even think that.

Let me point out that an "armed citizenry" overcoming a modern military is a supremely unrealistic scenario these days. To win, you're going to need to get the military to betray the government and join you (as the Romanians did).

Not at all. Simple fact is that the police can't be everywhere, and owning weapons IS an effective substitute for when the police aren't around and the bad guys are.

Keep in mind that it is not just a question of adding more police. I for one wouldn't want to live in a society where we did have cops on every corner. I suspect that a lot of other people wouldn't want to either.

The question we have to ask is, "What in society is turning out all these violent fruit loops?" Once we answer that question, we can reduce the incidence of that factor and thereby reduce violence.

It does, but you have to change the Second Amendment first. The greater damage isn't from wackos with guns, it's from people who would ignore the Constitution. It says what it says for a reason. Don't like it? Change it.


Propose a new constitutional amendment addressing gun rights, have a full and unhindered debate by society about the proposal, and get the Constitution changed. We have an amendment process, use it.

Not at all. Citizens on the scene using their own guns are widely credited with pinning down Charles Whitman, the Texas Library Tower sniper in 1964 ('65?) and keeping him from killing and wounding more people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
The real question is: Would that incident have happened, at least to that extent, if Whitman wouldn't have been able to legally purchase those weapons?
The argument: "People should have the right to legally buy and wear guns to enable them to stop other people from using those legally purchased guns." sounds somewhat weird to me.

So you propose to ignore the Second Amendment?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that it is right for my government to do these kinds of atrocities......I am very shocked that the government does these kinds of things; however, with the current state that our government is in I am not surprised. Now that I have clarified how I feel....the US constitution doesn't apply outside the borders of the US, and it most certainly doesn't cover foreigners outside the borders of the US. I would rather carry on this kind of fight in the courts and in the legislative bodies, not with guns; perhaps make it so citizens of other countries are protected from the CIA and other government agencies even when outside of the nation. Though the US is going downhill, it is not yet as bad as the USSR was. If were to get closer to how the USSR or Nazi Germany was, then would be the time to fight.

You say that Rome fell because of political reasons. These political reasons were basically corruption and inept management. The US is now going down the same road. And the inept political management will leak over into the military. Thus we seen that the US hasn't won a war since WII. Vietnam, North Korea, and the various wars in the middle east have all gone down in military history as a defeat for the US. Even if we successfully defeated the standing army of the country we were defeated by armed citizens waging a guerrilla war.

I was merely pointing out that we are able to hit moving targets even though we aren't trained to do so.

You may have a point, perhaps the civilians should receive training from qualified individuals like the Swiss used to do. That was the reason that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland during WWII, he knew that their highly trained militia would defeat his army.

No, there would be a black market of guns that would be run by the criminals. Excluding all of us good guys.

Yes, but I have read some Scottish publications and they have high amounts of knife crimes, I have heard the same for the rest of Europe. So, I guess we should take away all knives and then (since you can smother people with pillows)take away all pillows. Oh.....you can strangle people with computer cables, take away computer cables. Almost everything can be used as a weapon, government can only regulate so much.
I will admit, some people may get shot by the armed civilian; however, in nine out of ten cases the death toll will be less than if the armed civilian had just stood by and watched (or fled). If there was somebody at Sandy Hook Elementry school that had a gun when the shooting started, a teacher, for instance, and was able to shoot the shooter, ten kids may have died, not twenty.

This is ridiculous. The default position should be that an US agency should have to respect other countries citizen's rights, if you specifically have to make them behave that way then there obviously is something wrong.

Knifes usually have a different purpose than stabbing people. like cutting vegetables or what not. Pillows usually have the purpose to make you feel comfortable. Computer cables main purpose is to connect with with other things.

Guns only purpose is to shoot with them, they are intended to be used for killing or at least injuring people. It should be pretty obvious that those things are simply not the same and should be treated differently.

Irrelevant!
 

This doesn't directly bear on whether a citizen can bear arms and use them well to defend others. He can defend others even better if he has the training.

I was being sarcastic; a gun's only purpose is to kill, but you can use a gun to stop a killer. The argument that you made here is an irrelevant argument. An armed citizen can stop a killer from killing, its just that simple. There have been many times and many places were an honest citizen with a gun has defended himself and others.

Would be better to start with: Don't give people easy access to weapons, so that it is much more difficult for the killers to arm themselves.

There also have been time and places were it wouldn't have been necessary when guns weren't so easily available.

Or, of course, escalate the situation into something even worse.

Personally, I don't want to live in a modern day Dodge City where everyone can bear arms because some trigger happy a$$hole might shoot me by accident.

I would prefer to live somewhere I can shoot a trigger happy a$$hole on purpose.