A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate per capita than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.
Norway and Finland have less than 6 million inhabitants. One mass shooting will put them in the lead for years if calculated per capita. Switzerland has the weirdest gun laws in existance and almost every household has a gun, so no big wonder. France is suffering from completely misdone politics in terms of integration and their unlucky history of colonialism. Russia is not Europe and basically a country without law enforcement as soon as you leave a city. None of the above is changing the fact that gun violence is a problem.
I love how instead of addressing the number of shootings in america, pro-gun people just go "Well you guys have shootings sometimes too!!" as if that makes it okay?
Excuses. Why are y'all always hung up on "Gun violence", anyways? Is being shot somehow worse than having your throat slit? Having your skull split by an axe? Being crushed by a truck? Blown up by an IED? Lit on fire? Herded onto a train and locked in a gas chamber?
The fact that mass shootings happen anywhere where guns are banned invalidates any and every argument claiming that disarmament will stop them. Never mind the millions of times every year guns in America are used by civilians to save lives.
Disarmement won't stop, but minimise. Even you should be serious enough to admit that. The psychologic resistance to overcome in order to kill somebody by knife or whatever brings you in direct contact with the victim is significantly higher than standing 10 yards away pulling a trigger. Gun violence is the easiest to overcome and in order to protect their citizens, almost all developped countries have the according laws in place and they're veru efficient. And just because you learned two greek words it doesn't make them cooler if you constantly repeat them. And don't forget the simple fact that nobody of any other country has the slightest interest to take your guns from you, this is one out of three main punchlines your country has to offer and we love to laugh at you.
Oftentimes violence is justified. Germany should know this especially. Or is it more righteous for a woman to be raped and bludgeoned than for a home invader to be shot? More righteous to be forced on a thousand mile trail than to fight for your home? More righteous to be herded on a train to Dachau than to make a stand in Warshaw?
Only a fool would give up their means to effective self and national defense just to minimize what's already an outlier.
Not a fan of Greek? How about some Latin, Sic Semper Tyrannis. Better yet English, This We'll Defend.
Sic Semper Tyrannis means “and thus to tyrants” which doesn’t make sense without the actual image that accompanies it. (Bonus: it totally has a naked boob in it).
.
@famousone, is it your take that mass shootings are not optimal but are a price worth paying to maintain the means of community and individual defense?
I honestly feel that mass shootings could be better mitigated by hardening targets. Either actively (guards, metal detectors, panic switches) or passively (allowing armed citizens, encouraging vigilance). To lessen the occurrences and casualties.
I would say it's worth the price of the rare mass killing, but the places without our liberties still have the same issues, and comparable ones. Without the means to effectively defend themselves. So it looks like offering my right to self-defense, an extension of my right to life, and everyone's right to individual and communal defense, for nothing.
I've said before to Europeans that claim to only see dead classrooms when they see our gun rights, I only see the same plus mass graves and furnaces, when I look at their disarmament.
So leaving places outside the US out for the moment, you say the rare mass shooting is worth it. Would you say that’s where America is right now? It seems to be more than the rare occurrence at this point to me. What’s the line where the rights don’t outweigh the deaths even after hardening the targets and arming the citizens?
The issue is certainly overblown. Mass shootings in particular are spiked right now. Kinda. It seems less rare largely because of media hype, using definitions and criteria different from the fed's (4 not including the shooter as opposed to 3 including the shooter) and conflating gang violence with school shootings.
But I digress.
The deaths will never realistically outweigh the rights. If I had to give a number I'd take the number of Holocaust victims and civilians murdered by the Reich, plus the number of civilians to be killed and starved by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Maduro, China, etc., plus the number of people who have died to common crime where being armed could've helped, and those who did use arms to defend themselves from common crime. Plus the natives massacred by any government that disarmed them, mine especially... I'm sure you see where this is going.
The fact that mass shootings happen anywhere where guns are banned invalidates any and every argument claiming that disarmament will stop them. Never mind the millions of times every year guns in America are used by civilians to save lives.
Only a fool would give up their means to effective self and national defense just to minimize what's already an outlier.
Not a fan of Greek? How about some Latin, Sic Semper Tyrannis. Better yet English, This We'll Defend.
.
@famousone, is it your take that mass shootings are not optimal but are a price worth paying to maintain the means of community and individual defense?
I would say it's worth the price of the rare mass killing, but the places without our liberties still have the same issues, and comparable ones. Without the means to effectively defend themselves. So it looks like offering my right to self-defense, an extension of my right to life, and everyone's right to individual and communal defense, for nothing.
I've said before to Europeans that claim to only see dead classrooms when they see our gun rights, I only see the same plus mass graves and furnaces, when I look at their disarmament.
But I digress.
The deaths will never realistically outweigh the rights. If I had to give a number I'd take the number of Holocaust victims and civilians murdered by the Reich, plus the number of civilians to be killed and starved by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Maduro, China, etc., plus the number of people who have died to common crime where being armed could've helped, and those who did use arms to defend themselves from common crime. Plus the natives massacred by any government that disarmed them, mine especially... I'm sure you see where this is going.