Ireland bans handguns

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Good job.

Actually we're at an epoch in which if a state wanna control its population they have far more means than fire weapons, this is old fashioned, US should wake up about it. Or it should be more logical, all the weapons that are in the army should be authorized in the population in order to defend themselves against the state. Eh, that would be cool in TV games, instead of a car you could be THE LUCKY WINNER OF THAT WONDERFUUUL TAAANNNK! No, actually today there are other means to control a population and/or to impose a regime, this is really old fashioned. No matter if a population has weapons or not, the coming and the imposition of a fascist state is always possible, it depends of other criteria.

Banning guns on the other hand contributes to make a less violent society.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Good job.

Actually we're at an epoch in which if a state wanna control its population they have far more means than fire weapons, this is old fashioned, US should wake up about it. Or it should be more logical, all the weapons that are in the army should be authorized in the population in order to defend themselves against the state. Eh, that would be cool in TV games, instead of a car you could be THE LUCKY WINNER OF THAT WONDERFUUUL TAAANNNK! No, actually today there are other means to control a population and/or to impose a regime, this is really old fashioned. No matter if a population has weapons or not, the coming and the imposition of a fascist state is always possible, it depends of other criteria.

Banning guns on the other hand contributes to make a less violent society.

I agree with your premise that there are more ways to control a society than by banning guns. George W. Bush proved that with the Patriot Act and other fearmongering measures in the past 8 years. However, the idea that by making a law banning guns that some magic fairy will come out of the sky and instantly BOOM, all guns disappear is fucking ridiculous. This is why gun control is failing big time in the US, because not many people subscribe to the idea that if a gun ban were put into place that suddenly criminals would obey the law and hand in their weapons! In fact, such a law would only create a black market flooding with guns, just like what happened with Prohibition and what is happening right now with the War on Drugs. The result? A skyrocketing crime rate due to criminals taking advantage of the law abiding sheeple who decided it was better to be obey the law than have the means to protect themselves and their family, and those who decided to disobey the law and keep their guns or have to resort to buying from this black market would be treated like criminals. Would you really want that?
Before you even begin on who successful gun control works in Europe, let me add that many European nations aren't nearly as guncentric as the US is. There are way too many guns in circulation in the US for any remotely realisitc gun ban to work effectively. Also, tell me why in Switzerland, where every adult male is armed with a friggin assault rifle, the firearm crime rate is the around the same as Germany where they supposedly got rid of guns? This may not prove that armed societys are safer, but it doesn't prove that disarmed ones are safer still. But still, how do you explain this anomaly? Why is Switzerland safer than Great Britain when it comes to crime despite the fact that a large number of people there have friggin assault rifles while in Great Britain it's illegal to own a firearm?

I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Security, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SECURITY."

Well, like most of people who defend this issue, your arguments are prepared. Ok, you acknowledge that today guns don't matter a lot concerning the possibility of a state to take the control of its population. That's a good point.

Then criminality, violence. Well, you, like a lot of people who defend it, talk about Switzerland. Good point that you have been precise, you cited the fact the weapons every adult males have are some weapons from the army, an assault rifle, so more or less a war weapon I guess, when the average persons have such weapons they may hesitate more to take it with them and use it than if they have that cool and easy handgun.

Anyways, yes, the law on weapons in general, not only this riffle, is more flexible in Switzerland than in other countries of Europe, and, according to you, and I give you my trust for this, criminal rates are less important than in these other European countries. OK. Now, there may be other criteria to analyze. Yes? No? Maybe the fact that Switzerland is a more prosperous, more ethnically homogeneous - let's be clear here I don't mean that there is an ethnic predisposition to weapons and violence, it's just that ethnic minorities use to be discriminated and thus when there is some it creates more tensions in a society, let's continue to be clear, I don't mean here there shouldn't be or there should be less ethnic minorities in a country, at all, I'm just noticing some kinds of "mechanisms" - and a more socially homogeneous country could tend to explain also such things. Oppositely to UK, France, or Germany. To give you a caricature to make this point, you give all the weapons you want to people in Beverly Hills, they may not enjoy themselves by using it... (though, ok, the more you get money the more you have possibilities to being nut, but that's an other debate...)

Anyways again. Seems that Switzerland is not especially enjoying this wonderful status anymore, according to surveys I just watched to on the web, the trend is more and more to the banning. The most recent I've found told that in January 2008 51% of Swiss were favorable to a better control of weapons. Also, still on surveys, some organizations made some showing that the rate of suicide by fire weapon was higher in Switzerland than in other European countries. And in the same time, several other surveys shew that the more you ban easy way to suicide yourself, the more suicide rates decrease. For example a survey shew more precisely that since a better control of fire arms in Austria in 1997 the rates of suicide by fire weapons have decrease, and the rate of suicide by other means haven't increase. All I found was in French, if ever you want links tell me.

Anyways finally. We fall agree that a state doesn't need to ban firearms to control a population, some laws passed by that fake cow-boy that was Bush was effectively a wonderful example of this, and in your second post you seem to be more interested in the principle of freedom overall, but here we're talking about tools of easy and heavy violence, the more you ban them, the more you ban the possibility of expression of easy and heavy violence within a society. When you ban it, less people have it, so less people are afraid of being attacked with, and it's virtuous circle, they are less afraid so they are less tempted to have one, etc. And this contributes to a less violent society. Violence, especially by gun is being made sexy, but actually, it kills.

Then, you tell me about the fact that it would be too hard to set it up in the US because of the current situation. The only thing I can answer is: either you renounce to a principle because it would be too hard, or you keep the principle and try to do the dirty job.

And, to finish, some quotes are really seductive, especially if more of that they come from great people but it doesn't necessarily makes of them some theorems...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Makes me think of the remark of a US politician after what happened in Virginia Tech, maybe it was Bush but not sure: teachers should have a weapon in class to defend themselves.

Ok, now why in Europe, in countries more or less demographically and socially similar to US, like France, UK, or Germany, people don't have that claim? Why in the same time the criminal rates are higher in US than in these countries in which people can't have that wonderful defense that is a firearm? What is that?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Makes me think of the remark of a US politician after what happened in Virginia Tech, maybe it was Bush but not sure: teachers should have a weapon in class to defend themselves.

Ok, now why in Europe, in countries more or less demographically and socially similar to US, like France, UK, or Germany, people don't have that claim? Why in the same time the criminal rates are higher in US than in these countries in which people can't have that wonderful defense that is a firearm? What is that?

Take your pick as to the underlying cause of crime in the U.S. (drugs, socio-economic, etc), but it's not the ownership of guns by law abiding citizens.

Oh and skip the OMGZ WE NEED TO GET RID OF GUNZ CAUZ OF MADMEN1111!  That rallying cry is old an boring.  If you want to go down that road, ask the families on the Long Island Railroad massacre if they wish their loved ones were allowed to carry?  That guy would have got one shot off in Texas, that's why he went to Long Island.  He knew no on e would shoot back.

OK. Now there may be some differences between Europe and US societies that can explain that Europe handles better a society without guns for self-defense. Though for the matter of drugs and socio-economics, there may be some differences but not that huge.

But, sorry, I'll stay with my principle, and "traditions", cultures, societies, are here to evolve.

You're here, all the time, with "Law abiding citizens". Pardon, but do "Law abiding citizens" born and die like that? Would it be, or not, possible that someone who is a law abiding citizen one day, turns into something else latter? Then, you can't decide to release guns to "Law abiding citizens", you just release guns to human beings, and once they have it, then you have to hope that they will remain "Law abiding citizens". US releases guns to much more human beings than other Western countries, and thus has by far the highest rates of homicides of these countries. Look where is the US, it is the double of the first western country, Finland.

So, now, either you keep that way, considering everyone can attack you with a gun and thus you need one to defend yourself, the fact that guns are easily released encourages that way. Or you decide that this is enough with this, and decides to release guns far less easily than now. Maybe that if less people can easily have a gun , there will be less people to threaten the other ones with it. Thus there will be less possibility for a "Law abiding citizen" to turn into a criminal, just because once he had been tempted by this, the gun was here, let's ago. Thus also there will be less frightened people susceptible to buy a gun, thus less possibility for a frightened person to take its gun and shoot one day he loses a bit his control in such or such situation, because afraid or nervous or else, you never know, it's something that can happen to everyone. You know, when I watched Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore, I was thinking: "Oh man, that guy is unfair here and here and here", there were just a few points on which I found him relevant, the biggest one was: we shouldn't so much easily release guns in a society in which the fear is so spread.

Then, yes. Such a bill can't be decided like that, passed in Congress and "that's cool now we've a good gun-control". Such a decision has to come from the society, from a strong psychological movement, from average people who decide that this is enough now, and it has to be transformed by strong laws. Other than that, it would mean nothing. It's your society to choose the way it prefers.