I can't see why you can't have a discussion about this subject without resorting to name-calling and being a jerk. If you have a real argument, then spill it. Saying that 300 million people are right and the rest of the world are clueless when it comes to democracy and liberty is an excellent way of sounding like a douche.
However, it's most likely different cultures, views and values that explains why we have different opinions in this issue.

 

Good post, I appreciate you taking the time to make such good points Dave.

Here is the thing...
Our country is awful as punishing criminals.
The reason that is an important point is that in areas where the number of guns is low to non-existent, those are the areas where violent crime is the highest! Combine that with a criminal justice system that does not adequately punish a criminal and you have a potent mixture.

In area's where there are a high number of gun owners, crime is much lower. "Sacrificing" gun ownership for the "greater good" actually makes for a worse scenario because of the point that I mentioned above.

In the states, if you are a criminal, you are not going to go into a part of the country, city, town, whatever, where gun ownership is high and commit a crime, period. The city of Kennesaw Georgia is a prime example.

At one point, there was a city ordinance that stated that if you lived within the city limits, your household is to be armed. The police are very firearms friendly, and they enforce the law. Guess what the crime rate is? As close to zero as a major suburb can be. Guess what the police do if you commit a violent crime and somehow avoid by being shot, they punish you big time. The "society" in Kennesaw? Very polite and respectful. Not bad for a city that sits on the periphery of the city of Atlanta which is VERY anti-gun, and also VERY dangerous at night. You do not want to be on the street in Atlanta at night.

If you are going to place importance on the number of deaths that guns cause, then you must also place importance on the number of deaths caused by cars, or by knives, bats/sticks, hands and feet. Each one of those weapons individually, kills more people than firearms.

A gun is the best possible tool for self defense. And since most crimes are committed with a weapon other than a gun, it actually makes perfect sense to have a firearm. That leads to the question: Why would you choose to deny any free man the access to the best possible means of self defense? That is flat out immoral.

 

Then let me explain to you as an immigrant to this great country.

In Taiwan, where no civilian gun ownership is allowed, you have zero chance of defending yourself against criminals who get their illegal handguns from China. Your only chance is to beg for his mercy and hope that he won't kill you and your family.

In Taiwan, in 1949 when the KMT came over, they decided that the natives needed some lessons taught about civil order, and Chiang ordered mass arrest and murder of educated Taiwanese elites who he deemed to have incited "insurrection." Of course, under the Japanese and then the KMT's rule, no civilian gun ownership was allowed.

To this day there are still very deep wound that has yet to heal from the 1949 arrest and masscre.

What would have happened if civilians were allowed to have guns.

Hell, what would have happened if those 18 year old Chinese kids had access to the kind of rifle that I as a blessed American citizen am able to legally possess during the Tiananmen? Yet, because civilian ownership of guns is not allowed in China, the PLA was able to massacre over 5 thousand 18, 19 year old college kids with 762X39 coming out of their AK's.

This is why we Americans don't take kindly to the the Democrats and other misguided liberals wanting to take our guns away.

 

Here here!!
Damn good post.

 

^^ Actually, I just don't want people breaking in and stealing my crap.

 

I see your point Brian and I appreciate that you state your case and keep from name calling.
I think the main schism here is how we define freedom. I'd be inclined to say that in a real civilized society, there should be no need for a private citizen to be armed in order to feel or be safe. The law enforcement, the part of our society that we ourselves decided should defend us, should protect us. There really should be no need for private citizens to arm themselves to their teeth in order to feel or be safe.
In a situation where this clearly doesn't work, I see the need for the average Joe to own guns, but then, is not the real problem that the society can't defend and protect its own citizens?

I can't see how getting everybody in a town armed will solve the crime problem long term. This is the real problem, a problem that haven't got anything to do with guns at all.

Oh Stuka, a big part of my family is American or have lived there for long periods of time, so I can see where you all are coming from.
You point however talks about what happens during a revolution, that's a whole different thing.

 

Dave,
I think that many of the differences in culture and outlook is based upon the reality that your "culture" is more inclined to have "security" provided for it by a bigger government. Our culture is based less upon "security" and more upon "freedom". The more security you take on, the less freedom you have.

I would rather take on the personal, individual responsibility of providing for my own protection. One can not, and should not rely on the government for my security because it cannot possibly adequately provide it.

 

A bigger government doesn't equal more security. A bigger government doesn't equal communism. Laws and regulations doesn't equal socialism.

If you take the argument that more security equals less freedom and that the state can't provide you that security you need, then you basically have an anarchistic view. I'd say that the important is an unregulated economic policy from the government, because let's face it, the economic decisions will affect our lives much much more than a simple gun law can or will.
I'd rather see that the law enforcement provide security for us than every man for himself.

 

Last I checked, police teleporter has not been invented.

What are you going to do when there's guy that broke into your house and is threatening you and your family with his illegal gun?

 

Well, working as a bouncer, I'm pretty confident that I'd be able to handle the situation
My point is that it's better to prevent crime rather than to just let every citizen get a 12 gauge and be left alone.

Guns are, in that case, an effective way of relieving the symptoms, but not the pathology behind the symptoms.