The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

"My statistics ignore the part that doesn't fit with what I believe"

Germany has pretty strict laws on Guns, let's compare how many people end up getting shot here:

Per 100k population per year:
Germany: In 2012: 0.07 Homicides, 0.84 suicides, 0.01 accidents, 0.08 "undetermined". Overall 1.01
USA: In 2013: 3.55 Homicides, 6.7 suicides, 0.16 accidents, 0.09 "undetermined". Overall: 10.64

Ten times. More than ten times worse.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Yeah I know you'll fall back to: "There are other differences that explain this", and there certainly are a lot of reasons behind this, but face it: If nobody had guns you'd have far less people getting shot. Now how realistic it is to get all guns out of your gun-loving hands is another question, probably unrealistic. Sad for you, while I still walk through the dark at night, completely unarmed, I don't even carry a smartphone with me and feel save

Germany is not America. There definitely are thousands of other factors.

Just answer this: do you think people would spend a lot of their time to buy a gun on the off chance that they might get robbed/assaulted for money? I'll ask another question after this one.

Don't think this doesn't happen btw. I live near Baltimore and this happens every day to people in the city.

Justice Scalia died.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-found-dead-in-texas/

Is there a lot of time spending involved in that? Thing is the main argument that the NRA-people throw at the world, no matter what happens always is: "More guns at the scene would've prevented <insert gun violence incident here>", so finding counter arguments to "people have guns because it keeps them save" is a natural reaction to that.

Well I see that you know where I was going with that question. I'm sure there could be very high time spending procedures required for buying a gun. In Maryland the laws are actually very strict compared to other states:
http://www.freestategunrange.com/buying-process-handgun-qualification-license/

As for the NRA's argument, do you think they're wrong? I mean if someone tries robbing a bank, the robber(s) are going to be deterred if they know that lots of people carry weapons. They won't risk getting shot.

That is one way to see it and there sure is some merit in it if you look at it that way. But the other way to look at it is that the NRA goes like that after every single incident. School shooting? More guns! Cinema shooting? More guns! Random other thing? More guns!

The problem I see with this is simple: We're not all actually action Heros and in the real world there is a problem called friendly fire. Where is the difference between the original attacker and somebody who takes out a gun to shoot the original attacker? There is basically none. If you're lucky the "bad guy" has some clear outfit that makes him look like the bad guy, but chance is there will be a lot of open interpretation to that. So what you risk is that one person, for whatever reason, starts to shoot at somebody and then everyone around feels compelled to fight against "the attacker". After a short while you have multiple people shooting at each other, as nobody knows anymore who is actually the "bad guy". There simply is no friendly-fire warning system in the real world. This means that a single person shooting a single bullet can cause a chain reaction of people getting afraid and starting to "defend" themselves.
The same concept is the main problem why marching in into a foreign country to "fight the terrorists" is going to kill more innocent people by your own hands then letting the terrorists bomb you once in a while. But we already cleared our moral standpoints on that

Also if you're robbing a bank you're most likely crazy and/or desperate.
I honestly do not believe that a person crazy enough to rob a bank is going to change their mind just because a few more guns are around. Robbing banks isn't worth it either way, banks are like fortresses.

The only reason I see too much gun control as a problem, is because, much like marijuana prohibition, it is simply not enforceable with massive land borders as well as sea borders. UK can enforce it, since it's hard to obtain, and they have a total sea border and are closest to likeminded nations for gun control. US are already funding the Cartels enough, total gun control would still mean I could buy a gun at the corner store parking lot for 80 dollars, as well as a bag of "African Headband" for 15 more dollars, and nothing would change except the source would solely become the cartels.

Much easier, to punish gun crime, and not just the ownership of guns. Concealed carry, sure. Any action with a firearm at all, responsible for, and accidents equal prison time and probation with frequent checks to make sure you aren't around guns, and if you are, back in you go. There are already gun laws, and those need to be enforced. Not ammo or equipment limits, but criminal prosecution for gun-related crimes. More violent criminals in maximum security prisons, less non-violent drug criminals in them.

these two videos clearly haven't been viewed enough yet

He dodges too many pro-gun arguments to be taken seriously. He says our only argument is "we just love guns" when that is clearly not the case.

The second amendment was created to protect the people from tyranny; meaning there are always going to be far more good people than bad people and when the good people have guns they'll scare off the bad people. If that doesn't make sense or you don't agree with that then it's probably because you don't live in America.

not the case. he sais it's the only VALID argument. very different. and he goes over the other ones and why they aren't valid in detail. did you not watch that far?

I've actually lived in America. Six years no less. And in Texas no less. how long have you ever been abroad?

To me you're desecrating and pissing on the tombs of your founding fathers by showing such blatant disregard for the original intent of the second amendment.

Never in your LIFE would you consider starting a revolution. nor would any of the other Americans. and this is why the second amendment is being desecrated and shamelessly exploited in this day. shame on you.

Then what do you think the purpose of it is?

"to be able to form a militia to fight against a tyrannical government." you still haven't watched it to the end have you ?

I won't when he pisses all over people like my father who keep guns for protection. It's not a ludicrous idea, it's perfectly valid. We take out the 22 for target practice occasionally, and he keeps his pistol in a lockbox close by at all times. Takes him mere seconds to pull out the weapon, cock the hammer, and blow someones shoulder out. This isn't a ******* joke - this is our house. It'll take the police minutes to get here - minutes we don't have when some idiot with a very large knife walks in and takes our stuff.

There is no valid argument to take guns from law-abiding citizens who use their guns for recreational or protective purposes. That's any gun not declared illegal already (fully automatic m4s for example). The facts do not line up with gun-control proponents in the USA, and those outside the US have no business dictating how we should run things here. America is completely different. We have a unique history with tyranny, and we will not be put under it again. At least, those of us who remember to do so.

And **** you Tatsu. I would start/join a revolution against our government if I thought it was justified. Why the hell do you think I keep my marksmanship up? At least I'll be useful in WWIII. Unlike you lot. "I can throw stones* *I can hit a two inch target from 50 meters*

I don't think "being useful in WWIII" is something good. It would be better for the world if no single person were useful for that.
So better run and hide from the world than to be pushed into fighting somebody else's war.

Assuming the person is only there to steal and not to hurt you, as most thieves are, there will not be a situation were you even have the right to shoot, especially not without a clear warning. They'd have to attack you first for lethal force to be justified and even then the moment they turn their back all you can do is let them go.
... at least judged by my morals.

And when they are out to kill you, they'll have a gun as well and ... well ... good luck.

Actually that's incorrect to a degree. No judge or jury is going to be in favor of an intruder if they get shot. Your morals are invalid
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/may-i-shoot-an-intruder.html

I'm going to take this slow.

First: You cannot assume anything when someone invades your home. They might be only there to rob you, but we all know how easy it is for some untrained hotshot to set off a firearm and kill/maime someone. **** happens.

Second: Have you ever heard of property rights? We have those here in America. If someone comes onto my property with malicious intent, I have the right to defend myself from that intrusion. This is considered an inalienable right by the feds, though some states/localities have placed limitations on this. For example, in certain cities in Virginia, you cannot outright kill an intruder - you are only allowed to disable them. Killing could be forgiven, but it's usually a murder charge or something similar.

Third: Your morals are ****. If someone tries to STEAL my stuff or MURDER my family, I have the right to rip their life from their desperate and cowardly hands. They have debased themselves to less than human by attempting to steal from another that which is theirs alone. Those cowards deserve everything they get. Mercy is for someone else to sort out when my life and limb are on the line.

To both of you:
As I said, this depends on your moral standards. I realize different states have different laws on these questions.
To me your "if you're on my property or in general if you seem to threaten me I have the right to kill you"-concept is pretty .... wild.

oh my...

Just for information on the law in Germany here: In October a 80-year something man found guilty for killing a 16 year old who had, together with a few others attacked the man in his house. They had overpowered the man and threatened and hurt him in multiple ways, then proceeded to try to crack a safe. They failed and ran away. The old man, who happened to be a hunter, had managed to reach for a gun by that time. He shot 4 times, one of the bullets hit the young assailant in the back in a fatal way.
There was quite a bit of back and forth, with multiple judges involved, but in the end the old man was found guilty and given a sentence on probation.
So shooting somebody in the back, even after they were rather violent to you, isn't easily forgiven around here.

No, this isn't a dependency on moral standards. This is common sense. If you trespass with malicious intent, you will be punished. The land/homeowner has the right to defend themselves.

"Common sense" huh? Common sense is largely based on moral standards.

EDIT:
I think the moral questions involved are btw these:

a) how justified is killing somebody because they were potentially doing something not-as-bad-as-death to you?

b) how much accidents do you want to accept? Meaning that if you go with "You may shoot anybody you feel is threatening you on your own ground" you risk people getting shot for no good reason. Any surprising visitor suddenly is potentially getting shot.