[bugtodiffer]

Your Argument is: if more good people had guns this wouldn't have happened?

This is such an American take.

> The politicians, of course, are protected by the armed Parliamentary Protective Service. They just don't believe you deserve similar protection.

What are you talking about. A gun is not at all even close to anything regarding trained professional lifeguards. Wtf?

You Imagine you alone with a AR-15 vs 5 terrorists with AK's and you win, right?

Your logic is very flawed. I bet you I know how the robbers got the guns. From their fucking neighbors selling them at Walmart, legally.

More accidents and bad things happen with guns, by a ton, than your imaginary hero self-defense stories.

[leovingi]

Like another commenter has replied, not only are you factually incorrect, you are incorrect on a moral level, because your argument is that if the statistics show that more bad things happen with guns acquired legally, then that somehow trumps an individual's right to self-defense.

It does not and I hope you never get into a situation where you have to experience that choice for yourself.

[munksbeer]

> then that somehow trumps an individual's right to self-defense.

As a note, you don't have individual rights. That is a man made concept. You only have the rights that other humans grant you. There is no universal tablet of morals or rights, inscribed into the fabric of reality.

[ultimafan]

That's a very cynical viewpoint and one that's not very easy to convince people of. I don't think it's a very moral stance to take either because it can be used to justify immoral stances. There have always been actions in human society that are held as reprehensible regardless of time or culture that would seem to imply the opposite (or at least that the majority of people who live or have lived at the very least believe in the opposite being true)

[munksbeer]

It might not be to people's liking, but unfortunately it's just the truth. Human's have had what we would now consider absolutely awful "moral codes" throughout history. The only real truth is "might makes right".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

[fennecbutt]

It's a realistic view point. I'm gay and I don't delude myself on the fact it can be dangerous to express that in public. No matter "how far we've come" "we don't need pride parades anymore" etc.

[ultimafan]

Sorry, didn't see your response until today. But I'd argue that those two truths aren't incompatible with one another. Something can be an innate human right and also perceived poorly within a given culture at that moment in time. Someone not respecting a human right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. It's just being infringed. "Individual human rights don't exist" seems like a defeatist statement to me and also (looking at religion) doesn't seem to be one believed in by the majority of humans throughout history (though the nature of what is and isn't a right is probably what is usually argued about). There are some things that seem to be universally frowned upon in just about every culture (like unjustified, by their definition of unjustified, murder, rape, etc.) The idea of human rights should be sacred and inarguable because the alternative leaves room for pushback against them.

[munksbeer]

There is no innate human right. It is man made. And it changes all the time.

[kaliqt]

That is factually incorrect.

It is 1. A deterrent and 2. Accidents are just a result of poor training and 3. The amount of defensive gun use is exceptional, it does not get reported on purpose due to state propaganda in Canada, America, and so on.

Also all concealed carry holders regularly train, much of it is for fun, and their skills rival or surpass law enforcement.

[LeafItAlone]

>Also all concealed carry holders regularly train, much of it is for fun, and their skills rival or surpass law enforcement.

I generally disagree with your other bullets points, but this statement is so absurdly inaccurate I feel the need to call it out explicitly. It is absolutely not true that all concealed carry holder fit this description. Not even a majority of the concealed carry holders that I know do. It is, quite honestly, a fantasy.

(I am generally pro-gun rights combined with smart gun restrictions laws)

[ImPostingOnHN]

You are likely right, not all concealed carry permit holders practice, but cops practice even less, and generally are worse-trained to carry a firearm.

Instead of training in the legality of use of force, and to hit a target with a bullet, like most CCP holders get, cops get training that everyone is a potential enemy, and to spray and pray first, ask questions later. Considering they're essentially immune to going to prison when this goes poorly, the result is often bad.

[fouc]

guns don't really seem to be much of a deterrent in the US, instead gun crime is way up.

and what's worse is it becomes an "arms race" at the individual level. many people end up buying guns because everyone else already have guns (especially criminals), so they feel obligated to acquire guns to defend themselves from other people with guns. it's a vicious cycle.

the ideal solution is to keep the gun supply low all together, meaning your average criminal are much less likely to have guns, which is what most countries do.

not only that, having a massive amount of guns around & having a culture of guns probably directly leads to school shootings.

[rangestransform]

The ideal solution is that the government demonstrates overwhelming effectiveness at stopping violent crime so people won’t feel the need to have a self defense gun