White guilt?

Because a video on youtube said so?

Because someone in a video actually analyzed the statistics, for the benefit of the people dumb enough to believe everything their government tells them.

Thinking that possessing guns will 'keep the government in check' is almost laughable to be honest. If you need more than a handgun for self defense I really think you're better off not trying to fight your home invaders.

The fact a country that has stricter gun control laws happens to have a higher violent crime rate does in no way mean that 'having guns is better'. Guns are obviously but a small part of the social and economical (hell, even geographical) factors that lead to violent crime. The other side of that coin is of course that a high rate of things like school shootings are not solely dependent on the amount of guns available, as Cyridius mentioned. I'd argue that in this case the gun-availability factor weighs in a lot heavier, but it's just one case of many (gun)crime related issues.

The definition of violent crime in the UK is different to the definition in the US and as such a lot more crimes fall under violent crime in the UK than in the US and thus makes it difficult to compare violent crime rates.

The murder rate however is still substantially lower in the UK than the US.

Bare shit, This entire topic. Bare shit.

Because someone in a video actually analyzed the statistics, for the benefit of the people dumb enough to believe everything their government tells them.

I think there may be different definitions of this when it comes to violent crime. Also, whatever you claim: homicide rates are still higher in the US compared to the UK, so you are still "winning"!

'Murica and guns. Eh.

This topic is shit.

If you need more than a handgun for self defense I really think you're better off not trying to fight your home invaders.

In most cases you probably won't, but the government has no right to make that decision for you so long as you don't have mental health issues or criminal background. We probably don't need to spend as much time on the computer, but I'm not going to let the government make that decision for me either.

Thinking that possessing guns will 'keep the government in check' is almost laughable to be honest.

It's "the right to bear arms" which is all kinds of weaponry, not just handguns and hunting rifles. In theory the "shall not be infringed" clause would allow law abiding billionaires to privately own anything the military has access to, but in the modern world you can't just give anyone access to the latest technological secrets. In the rare event that there was a second civil war, the entirety of the armed forces wouldn't be backing the same side so that isn't an issue.

The fact a country that has stricter gun control laws happens to have a higher violent crime rate does in no way mean that 'having guns is better'.

Right. My point is not that increasing guns reduces crime (though this may be true), but that removing them hasn't proven effective either. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws and the country, and surprisingly is one of if not the most violent cities in the country.

Everyone gets so butthurt over these mass shootings, but looking at it objectively I really don't care because far more people were killed by drunk drivers just last month than in the past 3 mass shootings. So why isn't the government going after alcohol? Because they don't gain any power by taking the beer off the shelves. The government would rather be politically correct by declaring the Ft Hood massacre as workplace violence instead of an act of terror (as a result the victims weren't eligible for purple hearts), so they obviously care more about their agenda than the actual victims.

Thinking that possessing guns will 'keep the government in check' is almost laughable to be honest.

Tell that to Afghanistan.

Tell that to Afghanistan.

AKA the best country in the world for guerilla warfare. Also that goverment is a bit less powerful than the American. I dunno how a peoples army would deal with tanks.

Americans wouldn't be dealing with tanks. The US Military is still an extremely conservative organization. They would side with people, not gov. If they ever got involved.

The people that everybody would have to worry about is the Department of Homeland Security, i.e. ATF, NSA, FBI, local enforcement. While they do have tanks and drones of their own, they're not military grade.

The point I was making about Afghanistan is that people are armed. If they weren't armed they'd have gotten shit on by the Soviets decades ago, would probably have been shit on by the British decades before that, and would've been shit on by the Americans today.

An armed populace is one you should always be afraid of. Which is good. Fear keeps government in check.

I'm assuming that option 2 was a typo, because that is a pretty glaring contradiction.

nope, it wasnt a typo. you cant control guns. so weapons for noone or everyone.
and i dont want "bad people" to have guns, so i think, that weapons neither for bad nor for good are the right choice. of course, you cant go back, once you have liberal weapon-laws.

i live in germany, and if i would get robbed, i would not have a gun, but they wouldnt have a gun aswell, and i would know, that the police will always be much better armed therefore, which is not the case in america.

An armed populace is one you should always be afraid of. Which is good. Fear keeps government in check.

i dont think that arms have a great effect on revolutions in a modern society. when millions go on the streets to protest, they have enough power, even without arms.

but syria shows that you are right when it comes to nonmodern societies.

So many people have no idea what they are talking about its quite amusing.

idk whether to find this amusing or painful to read.

All you guys obviously have white guilt. Let it go.

All you guys obviously have white guilt. Let it go.

wrong according to uncle ruckus, we should be praising the white man, yoguerts let it go you should have no white guilt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsY

So many people have no idea what they are talking about its quite amusing.

This ^

Because someone in a video actually analyzed the statistics, for the benefit of the people dumb enough to believe everything their government tells them.

The data was not analyzed, rather than some of the concluding statistics. The U.K. and the U.S. have very different definitions of "violent crime", which leads to the misconception that the U.K. is significantly more violent than the U.S.