Armed to immobilize

As a teacher, I hate this. If there is a shooting, my priorities are clear. Lock the door. Barricade the door. (Seriously, I had a 2000 lb bookshelf on piano rollers that could be pushed in front of the door and locked that would make it effectively bullet proof. I had one class where during a shooting preparedness exercise, I identified students who could push it in front of the door and lock the wheels.) Do a count of my students. Notify to the office where my students are and which ones are missing and where the ones out of my class were last reported to be. And if the shooter tries to get in my classroom, I had a 12-20 foot extending aluminum ladder to get down from the second floor. My job would be to get the students out and be the last down.

If I have a gun, what are my priorities during a shooting? Wait for the shooter to get in so I can try to kill them? What if it's a cop trying to get in and I didn't hear them because my students are panicking? What if in the panic, I shoot and hit one of my students? What if I kill them? A lot of people who favor this plan have a lot of ways It could go right, and having thought of all the ways it could go wrong. Then there's what do I do with the damned thing the 99.999% of the time there is no shooting? (Seriously, shootings get so overreported when, in fact, they are extremely rare.) Do I keep it on my person? What's two prevent 2-3 of my students from restraining me and taking it off my person and killing someone they don't like in class? Keep it in a box in my desk? I've had students go through my desk before. If the gun is in a locked box, what's to prevent them from stealing the box, taking it out of the class, and trying every combo they can? Do I get fired if the gun gets stolen or taken from me?

The fig leaf, of course, is that it's all supposed to be voluntary. Great. So what happens when one of the teachers turns out to be mentally ill, has a weapon, and kills a student? It's gotten really close once already. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-teacher-shooting-20180228-story.html

You want to stop shootings? Remove the things that shoot. It's a very small, very select category of things.

@Somber
As a fellow teacher, thank you. This is how everyone should deal with the whole issue.

@Somber I read all that comment (which seems to make a lot of sense) but all I could think of during the reading was : "Oh my god, now they have shooting exercises in school ?!?" I mean just like we have fire exercises ?

@Isdaril At least once a year, some times twice. Shelter in place drills are half an hour of tedium. The shooter drills are a lot more serious. Worse, you get students who think bolting and running is safer. If you're in a line of fire, bolt and run. If a shooter gets into the classroom, run, fight, take cover, do whatever you can. But if you aren't, then you get on the floor, you lock and block, you take a count, you notify the office, and you wait for the resource officers and cops to act. They are trained, armed, and do not have 20-40 students to watch out for.

@Somber Yeah no, I didn't realize it was such a common occurence that you had to do exercices in order to mitigate the damage would an event like that occur. It's sad, really :/

@Somber Just viting up is not enough. Thank you very much for the sensible, complete, detailed answer. One warning, though: "and having thought of all the ways it could go wrong" is not "and haven't thought of all the ways it could go wrong"? I mean, they don't seem to have.

@Somber While outright removing all guns sounds sensible and logical (not saying that its not, its sensible, and such) its just that if such a thing were to pass. I have no doubt in my mind that an armed resistance(s) will rise up from it. The amendments are held in an almost religious like view in America especially in the south, and mid-west (cause wildlife is an active problem in the mid-west). This is not to mention the fact there are a total of a around 276 militias in the US currently (50 of those being state funded), and while some may see these militias as being managed by nothing more than "dumb hicks" these are still *armed* militias with some of them being run by actual military trained personnel, with some even having former spec-ops members.

So while yes, it sounds sensible, and all to just outright remove guns like they have done in other countries, the US is not simply "other countries", but I feel like everyone else has already figured that out.

@madetoview Honestly, I don't want to remove all guns. Many people have very good and valid reasons for owning their guns. Hunting. Sports. Personal protection. Just because they like guns.

But municipalities and states must be able to regulate themselves according to the wishes of their electorates, and thus the amendment trumping these laws makes public safety really difficult.

For instance: why do police always assume a black man is armed and thus 'fear for their lives'? Well they know the amount of guns available. If those guns are not available, the excuse 'I feared for my life' holds far less weight. Nevermind that african Americans are LESS likely to own a firearm for this reason. For a black person, being stopped while armed can be a death sentence.

Let's just give the children guns too. In fact , let's make gun ownership mandatory, so that everyone just ends up shooting each other to death.

The rest of the world works just fine without gun rights. Oh wow, however do we live without guns?

I don't know why Americans cling to them so desperately. Gun rights made sense 200 years ago. Today, guns do far more harm than good. Americans need to get their priorities straight.

@poodle_doodle in fairness, I can see places where gun ownership is no big deal. Rural areas with lots of open space and long times for law enforcement to be able to show up to do their job, sometimes firing a stray shot into the air is enough to scare off the bored teenagers trying to grow a little pot farm on your land (yea, that is an oddly specific example I gave, and for good reason lol). And that's not even counting the people who still legitimately hunt their own meat for food. But a good idea in one area is not a good idea in another. In cities/suburbs, for example, where a stray shot could hurt or kill some random bystander...yea. You're absolutely right. It server no real purpose there. I just want to point out that the location where a person lives does matter.

Of course, even in a rural area, there's a big difference between owning a couple rifles and being one of those nuts who practically jerk off while staring at their collection. And sadly, I'm thinking those nuts are outnumbering the responsible gun owners.

@infr

On the last point I suspect responsible gun owners are probably in the majority. Unfortunately the nutters and fanatics scream a lot louder and are supported by a lot of propaganda.

@poodle_doodle I fear that, in order to get their priorities right on this, they have to get their democracy right. USA democracy was advanced, detailed, well-designed and absolutely the best politica system the world had ever known... in 1788. Other counries have learned from it, made their own advancements, and now it is one of the oldest Constitutions of the world. And is showing its problems. From election rights, to interferences between the powers (particularly the legislative interfering with the executive, and the executive ignoring the laws - i.e. Guantanamo), to the overwhelming power of lobbies. Which is what we are now talking about. Why Americans cling to gun rights so desperately? They don't. The NRA does, and their reasons are obvious.

PS: Every comment in a place like this about complex things is necessarily a simplification. I hope you bear with me on that.

After America decided, with Sandy Hook, that guns are more important than children, I knew it was all over.
I used to admire and even love America.
Not anymore.

What happened? You defend guns with frothing passion, and declare all Europeans "freedom-hating socialist commies", not in the cheeky, brotherly way you once used to, but with a seething, hateful sincerity.
Shining City on a Hill, you ain't.

@DarkMage7280 I’m an atheist, and not particularly prone to superstition, but I felt like Sandy Hook was a message from *some* cosmic force, trying to get us to see reason. Let me explain....

December 14, 2012, a man entered the school in Sandy Hook, CT, with a gun and KILLED 26 people (20 children, 6 adults). That exact same day, at the Chenpeng Village Primary School in China, a man entered the school and went on a stabbing spree with a knife, INJURING 24 people (23 children, 1 adult).

The parallels are creepy in their similarity, and it bears repeating: 26 people DIED in a shooting spree, 24 people were INJURED in a mass stabbing. Yes, there are always going to be psychos, but why on God’s green Earth do we have to make their depravity easier?!

@TuxedoCartman
Very true. A couple of decades back we have a couple of cases in Britain with lunatics going wild with guns, at Hungerford and Dunblane and the laws, already fairly strict were tightened further. A couple of years after this another nutter attacked a junior school with a knife and while a female teacher was badly cut up protecting the children no one died. Similarly in recent years when Islamic bigots go on killing sprees they generally use cars and/or knives BECAUSE THEY CAN GET HOLD OF THOSE rather than guns.

I think the problem is the profits from the gun industry, which tend to be boosted after mass shootings, coupled with idiots and the paranoid mislead by the false interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

@DarkMage7280 : For what its worth its only the conservative half of the country that does not have the will to do anything about gun violence and mass shootings. They are slowly coming around but it is impossible to get anything done in the US Government without some level of consensus. Its heartbreaking to see what countries like Australia and New Zealand were able to do after just 1 mass shooting and then see the US Government continue to do nothing.

'@DarkMage7280' I'm waiting for Western countries to decide that children are more important than cars. People in London are, apparently, less important than knives. Year ago some 16-year old in Russia caved in teacher's skull and maimed few other students with an axe, still waiting for bans on woodcutting tools.
Why don't you ban death?

@comrade_Comrade

Resorting to cars is an inane straw man.
Cars are pretty important in any modern society, and serve a transportational and recreational function.
Guns are only used to make holes in people.

"Why don't you ban death?"

...................Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with?

'@DarkMage7280' "Cars are pretty important in any modern society, and serve a transportational and recreational function."
They kill as many people annually as a medium-sized war would, children included.
School shootings for a decade killed fewer children than cars do per year.
Having access to car is a privilege, not a right. Personal cars were very rare in Soviet Union, kids were safe on the streets.
So, should I read that as you selling out childrens' lives in favor of convenient transportation?

"Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with?"
Well, if only you would have a law that prohibits people from killing other people they would stop killing, right?

@comrade_Comrade We do limit cars though. You need to be a certain age and pass a written and practical exam to gain a license to be allowed to drive one. And should you violate the laws regarding the driving of cars, you can get that license revoked and be forbidden from driving cars, or have your car taken from you.

Applying the same to guns just seems like common sense to me. Sure, it won't stop every shooting, just as driver licenses don't stop every car incident, but every one it does stop is a worthwhile cause.

'@keroko' you say that use of cars is highly regulated, but number of car-related fatalities in US is still much higher than number of deaths caused by guns (gang violence included, suicides excluded). I expect that difference to be of titanic proportions in EU.

So what you've actually said is that device which (both it's use and it's design) is tightly regulated causes more deaths in absolute numbers or per million of populations. If you include another popular argument that cars are more regulated than guns, then it looks like car control is failing hard to prevent fatalities.

Do you care about absolute number of deaths, some relative number or you're just particularly selective about an implement that was used to kill them?

@comrade_Comrade
I got the real comparison for ya if you want to trot out the ol car vs. guns argument. Add up the total amount of time the cars in the US are in regular use vs. the amount of time they are used specifically for killing or maiming someone. Now compare that ratio to the amount of time a gun is in use vs. the amount of time they are used for killing or maiming someone. That is the car vs. gun argument. Even with the higher amount of total deaths the amount of time vehicles in the United states spend not killing or maiming is astronomically more than the amount of time they are killing. Where as guns, even if you add up all the range time of both recreational and army training, are used for a far closer ratio of time spent killing or maiming vs. time spent on anything else.
So yes, the car regulation IS working because the amount of time a car spends killing or maiming someone is minuscule compared to regular usage.

The right to bare arms needs to be the same as the right to free travel between states, it needs testing, and proof of proficiency.

'@Wetmang' "Add up the total amount of time the cars in the US are in regular use vs. the amount of time they are used specifically for killing or maiming someone."
Oh yes, number of people killed by cars in regular use is probably vastly greater than number of people killed by drivers with intent. Good argument against cars.

I see you're trying to use ratios instead of absolute numbers. Why, don't you consider every individual (especially children) valuable?

@comrade_Comrade
Add up the total amount of time the cars in the US are in regular use vs. the amount of time they are used specifically for killing or maiming someone. Now compare that ratio to the amount of time a gun is in use vs. the amount of time they are used for killing or maiming someone.
Sorry that regulation is getting in the way of your desire to kill maim people.

'@Wetmang' yes, you already proven that cars kill and main people even without intent of the driver. That makes them more dangerous, not less.

What you don't notice, or pretend to not notice, is that perceived safety and widespread of the cars are the reason why, in absolute numbers, their number of accidental or intentional fatalities is huge.
Real or fake outrage is about individual people killed, not some ratio.
As example of Dijon, Nantes, Nice, Berlin, London, Stockholm, Barcelona, New York, Munster and Toronto shows us that cars were used to maim and murder shocking number of people, if used with intent.
Tens of thousands of people per year die to car accidents in EU alone. Hundreds of those are children. I'll use a popular rhetorical device used in US and ask: how many more children have to die before you do something about cars?

@comrade_Comrade
What I've proven is that the usage of one of these items a car is usage vastly more for transportation, its intended usage, than for the killing and maiming it does. Hence why there are millions of hours of usage of cars that are not done killing and maiming. Guns on the other hand have only a few other usages than killing and maiming and they barely are used for those purposes over killing and maiming. And yet one item used for transportation is more regulated in the general populace than the other that is used for vastly higher ratios for killing and maiming and is not regulated.

What you've proven is that when you use a 2 ton item in public on a daily basis for multiple hours then the likelihood of an accident happening increases. Who of thunk it? And I love how you breeze over accidental or intentional fatalities, because the fatalities of cars are almost always accidental and if they aren't then they make international news. Almost every fatality by gun is intentional meaning in those incidents those people bought those items to kill or maim someone. Please tell me how many people per day buy a car for the sole purpose to kill or maim someone?

'@Wetmang' " And yet one item used for transportation is more regulated in the general populace than the other that is used for vastly higher ratios for killing and maiming and is not regulated. "
a) not true, b) you've proven that perceived safety of a device led to it's ubiquity and, subsequently, vastly greater death toll.

If you're not using utilitarian argument for guns, I won't let you use it for cars. As such, for the sake of argument I don't care about utility, I care about death toll.
25 thousands people per year in Europe alone are dead because of cars, hundreds of them are children. According to certain politician that is obscene, yet you're defending it.

"What you've proven is that when you use a 2 ton item in public on a daily basis for multiple hours then the likelihood of an accident happening increases. "
I've listed cities that suffered from attacks that were intentional and where car was either on par or even more deadly than attacks carried out with guns. Address the issue or don't bother replying.

@comrade_Comrade
1. Prove it 2. If you're not going to refute anything I said besides a long way of saying "I know you are but what am I," then whats really the point?

You can keep harping on that comparison but it's not, it's a fallacy unless you compare the usage of both for the same application. One is used in a vastly greater ratio for killing and maiming than the other. Unless you are trying to say that more time is spent by cars killing people than guns in which case I have a random patch of land in Syria you can stand in to see how many cars try to kill you.

And I showed that cars operate for millions of hours collectively as transportation and maybe a few collected hours of killing vs the millions of hours collectively that guns are used for killing and maybe a few collected weeks of any other usage. Sorry that your comparison isn't applicable unless you actually compare the two.

'@Wetmang' so you're just replying without reading.

@comrade_Comrade lol the internet debater's version of "I know you are but what am I"

'@Wetmang' nope. You failed to address every single issue, even when asked to do that specifically. You can keep repeating the same blatantly wrong point over and over again. If it's your style, then I suggest you continue this argument with some chat bot - it will have a lot in common with you.

@comrade_Comrade Decided to actually look up the vehicular crash deaths vs. gun deaths in the US. Gun deaths are higher per 100,000 ppl as reported by the CDC. So your argument is now completely gone. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide

'@Wetmang' "suicides with firearms". You're not even reading your own links.

@comrade_Comrade Well, yes? The very fast majority of the population uses cars every day, while guns owners don't even make up half, and those who own them don't use them every day. More use, more chance of incidents.

Really, all I'm saying is that even with cars, the convenient strawman, we have rules that regulate their ownership and use. Why not with guns?

'@keroko' guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to be safe for people inside and, sometimes, on the outside too. Number of users is irrelevant, it only speaks about wider adoption of device. Considering that it's lethality (in absolute numbers), especially towards children, is dominant, I'm asking yet again: where are the calls to ban cars?

"we have rules that regulate their ownership and use. Why not with guns? "
Are you unironically unfamiliar with even most apparent gun laws in US?

@comrade_Comrade I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that we should be banning cars or that USA shouldn't ban guns ? Or are you pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at America being unable to enforce gun regulation when we are not doing anything to prevent our cars from killing people ? Or are you drawing a parrallel between gun regulation and car regulation that is being hindered by the same capitalistic interests ?

'@Isdaril' all of the above, except capitalism. I'm taking argument used against guns and flip it to the cars, so far everyone who tried to defend cars turns to utilitarian argument. So far everyone tried to use emotional argument against guns and utilitarian argument in favor of cars. I guess that makes them "left wing car nuts".

There's also a third option. In US, certain part of population and politicians representing them want to ban semi-automatic guns and shotguns after every convenient shooting. In Russia semi-auto shotguns and rifles are legal, with rifles being limited to those who owned shotguns for five years, limit on their ammo capacity is enforced weakly. We had a few mass shootings, and I don't think that at any point additional gun regulation was proposed.
What happens after mass killing of one kind or another is:
1) nothing
2) tightening security measures
3) further reduction in privacy through expanded monitoring of electronic communications, expanding list of banned internet sites and attempts to limit or ban the use of VPN and encrypted messaging applications.

Compare and contrast.

@comrade_Comrade Hmmmmm... I kinda see some of your points but why do you think utilitarian argument is not valid ? Don't you think a car is not more useful than a gun ? I personnaly see no reasons whatsoever for almost anybody to own a gun (including myself), but owning a car seems pretty usefull in a lot of situations. I don't own one because there are lots of reasons why I think owning a car is a bad thing (not limited to the fact that they are dangerous) and I'm in a situation to do so, but I understand that some people don't really have a choice if they want to go to work or have a social life. On the other end, most people don't need a gun to go to work or have a social life. I'm not saying a life without cars is impossible, but as things are standing currently, it is really hard to enforce an immediate ban on cars because most people need to have one just to continue living, so should the government do so, it should be done gradually over the years with a lot of compensations given to those who have to move away from that mean of transportation (but i'm strongly in favor of that though). On the other hand I don't really see the problem with a hard ban on guns because they don't seem like a necessity to me (but I don't really have a strong opinion on that, this is how we roll here in France and it seems to be working pretty well, but I not particularly versed in the subject).

Now I don't really know the state of Russia right know. I was under the impression it was pretty violent so I don't really get what you are trying to say with your second point. Seems like Russia is not banning guns but it doesn't seem to get better over there either (as you mentioned you got mass shootings too) so if anything it seems your argument should be more in favor of guns regulation (though you stated you were against it so I probably don't have a good grasp on the situation). I guess my main question is : do you think what is done in Russia is a better way to handle things ? (if so you're gonna have to explain how with data because I really don't know much about either mass shootings in USA or in Russia)

'@Isdaril' utilitarian argument is valid as long as it's used consistently. I don't see how it can be used consistently to call for ban on guns, but not cars.

"I personnaly see no reasons whatsoever for almost anybody to own a gun "
I lived through 90s in Russia and seen plenty of evidence that any other instrument of self-defense is mostly useless in serious situations. If you tried to use pepper spray, gas pistol and trauma gun for self-defense and failed (and they fail a lot), you've just signed up for at least a heavy cranial injury.
Incidentally, gun debate in Russia revolves around lifting ban on civilian ownership of handguns, while popularity of trauma guns is steadily increasing.
Then there is that whole thing about armed population acting as deterrent against use of force by government, and a side effect of having a reserve of people proficient in firearms use that can be used by law enforcement or military.

"On the other end, most people don't need a gun to go to work or have a social life."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/
CDC study linked in the article, along with some explanations. You can go directly to study and search for "Protective Effects of Gun Ownership".
Ultimate example would be a meme about Roof Koreans. While humorous now, it certainly was serious amid of race riot. Battle of Athens (google it, it's not Greek Athens) was an interesting case too.

"I'm not saying a life without cars is impossible, but as things are standing currently, it is really hard to enforce an immediate ban on cars"
It's really hard to enforce a ban on already sold guns too. New Zealand is an example of that.

"because most people need to have one just to continue living"
Greens been pushing in favor of mass transit for a long time. People can go to work, hospital or school on a bus, everything else is an optional privilege on par with feeling safe from home invasion or physical violence. Ultimately, this is an example that most societies accept certain death toll as a cost of convenience and don't like to think about it.

"it should be done gradually over the years with a lot of compensations given to those who have to move away from that mean of transportation"
If the absolute number of deaths would be seen as important, that process would have started decades ago and finished by now. At very least ban on sale of new cars and transfer of existing ones would been easy to implement, as long as population was willing to accept that.

"Seems like Russia is not banning guns but it doesn't seem to get better over there either (as you mentioned you got mass shootings too)"
According to statistics, legally owned guns were used in only 8% of gun-related crimes in 2010-2015, most of those were cases of illegal hunting. Half of illegally owned guns are coming from interior troops, military or police weapon lockers, 17% from "conflict zones" (aka Caucasus and Ukraine), 14% are stolen from manufacturers, 5% are dug up and restored WWII weapons. Everything else is either stolen from owners, or scratch-built or conversions of trauma, gas or pneumatic guns.
Increase of legal gun ownership so far was almost completely detached from gun crimes, while mass shootings are overshadowed by terrorists using bombs or psychotic school students using knives.

The most obvious way in which Russia is better than US in handling gun violence is that we don't have Baltimore, Chicago or New York, while most people with mental health issues are either too destitute to have a gun (or a car, or anything really) and have to resort by other means of killing themselves and whoever else voices in their heads want dead. So, officially, in Russia only 4380 people were killed with guns in 2016, and 38% of those are suicides.
That means that out of total 10.4k murders and attempted murders in 2016, only about a third were committed using guns, vast majority of which were owned illegally. So, adjusted for population size, Russia had at least 50-80% (actual numbers are difficult to compare since in Russia numbers for murders and attempted murders are combined) more murders than US, but 70% of those who died were stabbed, hacked, beaten or strangled to death, and more than 20% were killed with illegally owned guns (and I assume that most were killed with handguns which show up in gun crime statistics, are illegal for civilian use and wouldn't be sold in the first place). All while semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (which every progressive in US seems to want to ban) are as legal and as easy to get as manually or pump-loaded guns, and handguns are limited to security guards and police.

@comrade_Comrade People can go to work, hospital or school on a bus => No they can't. At least not everybody can. As I said, I do not own a car and use one very rarely, but it is because I live in Paris which has a very good public and mass transportation system. But not every city in France is the same and I grew up in a small village where you can take the bus only one time a day (at 7:30) and it only drives you to one place. Considering that the place where most people work (the bigest town nearby) is 30 km away, there are no other way than to use cars to go there or spend more than 2 hours in transportation time every day. And France is a relatively small country but I bet it can get much worse in the US or in Russia.
But again I'm all for banning cars (maybe leave one year or two for people to adapt) in cities that have other good ways of transportation (like Paris) while allowing it where it's more convenient than mass public transportation (you could also enforce some limitations to encourage carpooling in such places). I'm also in favor of building more train/metro/tramway lines (I prefer them to buses because they are safer and more ecological) where you can while reserving buses in places where it's not worthwhile to build those. And I'm not sure about Murica, but i'm pretty certain people are ready to accept such changes in Europe. I don't know why we do nothing about cars, but it probably has more to do with the fact that it would have a strong negative impact on economy (Germany especially has a very strong car industry) than the population's lack of desire to change. And I suspect it is the same for guns in the USA.
After hearing your explanations and reflecting a little bit about what I know about recent history, I'm not certain it is very usefull to compare Russia and USA : the 2 countries seem too different to draw valid conclusions from one another. In particular, you seem to have less shooting in Russia more because the population is poorer than because the policies applied are good. Also it seems the government in Russia, unlike the one in the USA, has struggled a lot during the last 3 decades to maintain public order (but the condition seem to be improving swiftly, I'm not sure wether it has to do with putin's regime or not). In that context it seems more likely for a citizen to have to defend himself, because the government can't do it for him. And in that context I'll grant you the fact that guns may have utility. That being said, because it is true for Russia doesn't necessarily mean it is true for the US. And I don't think the US government is failing that much to maintain public order.
As I've stated before I really don't have a strong belief as to wether gun regulations discourage homicides. But I'm probably still strongly in favor of such laws because I don't think the world needs more weapons and strong regulations certainly discourage weapon industry. Also I always found odd the fact that the USA was such an oddball amongst the rich countries and thought it would fit nicely to explain that by their love of guns.

PS : I've been trying to find some statstics about violence explications and found this : https://journals.openedition.org/champpenal/7966?gathStatIcon=true&lang=en. It's in french but is pretty interesting. They don't say a thing about gun regulation (probably because it is hard to determine a "degree of gun regulation"). But it is interesting to see that violence is positively correlated to democracy (precisely it is negatively correlated to dictatorship) and youth which seems logical but somehow wrong... Christianity (particularly catholics and protestants) seem to be positively correlated to violence too. And here we thought islamists were violent... Of course the study has many shortcomings (only consider countries as a whole for example, but the reality is much more complicated) but it seems a good base to compare countries one by one.

'@Isdaril' "And France is a relatively small country but I bet it can get much worse in the US or in Russia."
In early sixties USSR had very little personal car ownership and that translated into mere ten thousand or so car-related fatalities. That number increased threefold by 1986. Certain remote places were effectively self-contained, some villages or rural towns had bus come in two or three times a day and/or car or two in public use.
It's manageable.

"I don't know why we do nothing about cars, but it probably has more to do with the fact that it would have a strong negative impact on economy (Germany especially has a very strong car industry) than the population's lack of desire to change. And I suspect it is the same for guns in the USA."
Economic impact from ban on guns will be minimal, it will mostly put out of work small-ish firms that produce custom parts for sporting rifles. H&K, FN or Glock will never be out of work with military and law enforcement, while Colt and Smith and Wesson look the opposite of "vast military industrial complex" that anti-gun activists like to imagine. The real difference is that more people are familiar with cars and media wasn't hysterical about them since early 20th century.

"In particular, you seem to have less shooting in Russia more because the population is poorer than because the policies applied are good."
Best point of comparison is the fact that most of the guns that are legal for civilians are those which anti-gun activists in US want to ban the most. It's true that there are only about 6 million guns in personal use, but it leads to the fact that in 2015 out of 6900 total gun-related crimes (not just murders) only 594 were committed with licensed firearm, and of those 147 are pistols and revolvers. One of the major pro-gun arguments (law disarms honest people, lawbreakers will have guns anyway) holds up.
Another important point is while handguns are virtually unavailable for civilian use, number of murders in general is higher. That means that incidents of road rage or drunk fights still happen, only someone is getting stabbed with a kitchen knife or beaten to death with a baseball bat. While police response time in Russia is certainly longer than in US ("call us when he'll break the door and we'll be there in 30 minutes or so") I'm confident that most of 1v1 violence (main source of murders that are not gang-related) concludes within several minutes.

"And I don't think the US government is failing that much to maintain public order. "
https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com
I personally know a guy who says he will not go to Chicago without his gun, another one got Taurus Judge just to work in Detroit.
Failures of law enforcement in US are localized.

"But it is interesting to see that violence is positively correlated to democracy (precisely it is negatively correlated to dictatorship) and youth which seems logical but somehow wrong..."
While I'll stay away from speculations about political system, correlation between youth and violence doesn't feel wrong. As in an old joke, when God tells Adam that he has good and bad news: good is that God gave him penis and brain, bad is that they don't work at the same time. By the age of 25 hormones calm down and people (particularly men) become much more risk averse.

"Christianity (particularly catholics and protestants) seem to be positively correlated to violence too. And here we thought islamists were violent."
Not surprising, really. Christianity is on the decline and it's role in organization of community has decreased, I'd expect it to be more likely to find a Christian who feels socially isolated, as such less moderated and directed by others.
I would also say that Muslim countries had a steam release valve of quasi-religious local conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya or Syria, which absorbed some particularly dysfunctional individuals, but I have no idea if it has any measurable effect.

@comrade_Comrade "Failures of law enforcement in US are localized." Then only allow guns in those places, not everywhere. Only allow guns where they have a purpose, not everywhere.

"In early sixties USSR had very little personal car ownership." Sure, and a thousand years ago nobody used other means of transportation than feet or horses. Nobody used a freezer to stop his food from rotting or a computer to store data. Also no one used bulldozers or cranes to build castles (though thousands died to build them). No one used electricity, gaz or coal to stop oneself from freezing to death. And they somehow managed, they didn't have the same life expectancy nor the same comfort but they managed. But because it happened in the past doesn't mean it would be easy for current humans to live that way again... Our society is not organized the same way, it has adapted to those fast means of transportations and if you prevent humans to use them a lot of them will simply die (here i'm talking about trucks) or deperish (here i'm talking about cars)

"Economic impact from ban on guns will be minimal". There are currently 393 millions handguns in the hands of US citizens (according to wikipedia at least), 392 millions of those are posessed without a license. This doesn't seem like a small business to me...

"One of the major pro-gun arguments (law disarms honest people, lawbreakers will have guns anyway) holds up". No it does not, you only see what you want to see there, an other explanation is that Russia is more violent than the USA but because people can't get easily hold of a gun they don't manage to kill themselves that easily. Would you allow them an easy access to guns, homicidal rate would skyrocket. I'm not saying your explanation is necessarily wrong, but there are many other explanations to those facts. And again, I'm still not certain of the relevance of comparing USA and Russia. Don't forget there is a big correlation between violence and poverty (PIB/person) and Russia and USA don't really play in the same league there so it is expected from Russia to be more violent than the USA in the first place.
"Another important point is while handguns are virtually unavailable for civilian use, number of murders in general is higher." Exactly, because gun regulations are not (if they are at all) the only variable that can explain violence.

"While I'll stay away from speculations about political system". Well this one seems easy enough : if you increase the control on people's behaviour the more extreme elements of the society will have less room to do as they want (just like everybody else). It's the classic "freedom vs security" argument. That is why I said it makes sense though it feels wrong (because we always want to see freedom as a good thing).

"I would also say that Muslim countries had a steam release valve of quasi-religious local conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya or Syria, which absorbed some particularly dysfunctional individuals, but I have no idea if it has any measurable effect." Well the author states that a lot of countries that have an "inexplicably" (inexplicable means that his model gives higher violence rates for these countries than what they really arenot that they have a very low violence rate, USA and Russia are in that same basket of inexplicable rates, but they are on the high side, both should be less violent than they are. It doesn't mean anything special just that we probably miss some variables to completely explain the data) low violence rate are muslim. Maybe this could be an explicative variable that works only in certain muslim countries that had their violent elements deported in other places (or maybe not).

'@Isdaril' "Then only allow guns in those places, not everywhere."
Physical impossibility due to interconnected nature of United States, and such solution assumes that crime is immobile.

"Our society is not organized the same way, it has adapted to those fast means of transportations and if you prevent humans to use them a lot of them will simply die (here i'm talking about trucks) or deperish (here i'm talking about cars)"
With arrived to what, with a bit of rephrasing, is one of the common arguments in favor of gun ownership.
I'll put it this way: as "libertarian mugged by reality" I wouldn't really care about issue of cars and accept that certain number of incompetents, morons and psychos will cause death and injury with any tool (from angle grinder and up to and including 20-ton truck), but the sheer number of fatalities shouldn't be taken as easily as it is taken. And, unlike guns or freedom of speech, ability to drive a car was never framed as a right, from the start it was seen as privilege specifically granted by state. The fact that even utilitarian side of "car rights' is barely discussed at a time, when in UK is in moral panic about kitchen knives and drain cleaner, is an interesting aberration.

"There are currently 393 millions handguns in the hands of US citizens (according to wikipedia at least), 392 millions of those are posessed without a license. This doesn't seem like a small business to me..."
Smith & Wesson (on life support for over a decade now) had a revenue of less than 1 billion dollars in 2016. Ruger and Remington should have about the same, though they are also in a better financial shape.
Lockheed Martin's revenue for same year was about 50 billion. Ford Motor Company that still doesn't seem to recover from previous recession, in the same year got revenue of about 150 billion.
Colt Defense, even though it's supposed to supply rifles to US military once in a while, filed for bankruptcy few years ago. There is a joke in this, because Trump's election was actually bad for business, Obama's proposal to further limit gun rights led to gun sale spikes.

One of the major pro-gun arguments (law disarms honest people, lawbreakers will have guns anyway) holds up.
"No it does not, you only see what you want to see there, an other explanation is that Russia is more violent than the USA but because people can't get easily hold of a gun they don't manage to kill themselves that easily. "
You've missed that whole part where over 90% of gun crimes are committed with guns that are owned illegally. Handguns, which are usually the main tool of a homicide, cannot even be stolen from civilians. In an environment where (even absent the expenses for license and everything else) legal gun cost is considerable, almost a third of murders and attempted murders are committed with firearms. This can only mean that a) utility of gun is such that criminal will use it despite the risk of greater punishment and b) organized criminal structures gain an advantage in (or even exist for) distribution of illegal guns.
So, the death toll of organized crime is sort of baked into the total. Assume that instead of 6 million legal guns there are 60 million (i.e. every other person in Russia owns a gun) and "common violence" with guns scales proportionally, so it goes up tenfold. So instead of 100-300 people killed per year with legal guns there will be 1000-3000, while same or less than how many are killed with illegal guns already. That means that total number of people killed with guns will only double, and that's without accounting for displacement (i.e. people killed with a gun would be otherwise killed using something else) and unknown effect of defensive use.
That to me looks like a solid argument not in favor of limiting the guns, but in favor of paying more attention to organized crime, especially since it can operate across state borders.

"That is why I said it makes sense though it feels wrong (because we always want to see freedom as a good thing). "
Well, it's generally good, there's just a price tag of death and suffering attached to it.
I think that in last several decades people in general were so insulated from reality of violence that such price tag will (if it isn't already) will not be seen as acceptable.

@comrade_Comrade "Physical impossibility due to interconnected nature of United States, and such solution assumes that crime is immobile."
The world is interconnected, and we manage to ban guns in EU while it's not banned in the US. You don't necessarily have to assume that crime is immobile, some people could be in charge of specifying zones where guns are allowed without a license (although there would be a logistic question to answer, but it's manageable)

"I think that in last several decades people in general were so insulated from reality of violence that such price tag will (if it isn't already) will not be seen as acceptable."
An interesting thought (as dreadful as it may be)... Though I don't think it will happen, I think we are living at the peak of our civilisation right now. I don't think it will last more than one or 2 decades longer (because we just don't have the resources on earth to do so more than 2 decades). And I don't think things will be pretty at the end (this is another dreadful future for sure)...

"So instead of 100-300 people killed per year with legal guns there will be 1000-3000, while same or less than how many are killed with illegal guns already. "
Well I'm not an expert but I wouldn't imagine for things to go that way. First granting a gun to almost anybody would mean that it would become the main weapon to kill someone (why would you use a risky way to kill someone when you could just use a gun). Second, as you've now effectively armed everybody, fights would transform into a shooting feast with the potential to kill both the agressor, the victim and additional bystanders. So for each previous tentative of homicide, you now have 1 to 10 death instead of just one possible death, multiplying your current homicide rate by a factor comprised between 1 and 10.
Your argument is basically saying "fights are going to happen anyhow so I should give people the best way to kill eachother, that way it's fair for everybody". It's indeed probably fairer, but it is also probably deadlier. Look at it that way : if you are a bystander and you see two people fight with their fist, you can probably intervene and stop them from killing each other, but if they are fighting with guns, you're likelier to get killed before you managed to stop one of them... Building weapons for "protection" only works for so long (that's how WW1 started and how Russia and USA almost destroyed the world during the cold war)

"The fact that even utilitarian side of 'car rights' is barely discussed at a time, when in UK is in moral panic about kitchen knives and drain cleaner, is an interesting aberration."
I won't fight you on that. But people are not rational creatures.

Also to come back to my first question, it's not because we should "ban cars" (as I already said, it's more complicated than just banning them out of the blue, but we certainly should take the first steps of that long process) that we shouldn't ban guns... You stated you were against cars and pro guns, but all you've said to justify your pro-gun stand is that cars are worse than guns (which is a statement I probably agree with, mainly because car usage and gun usage are not of the same scale). And this is not a very good justification because it is not an alternative, we can ban both or keep both.

'@Isdaril' "The world is interconnected, and we manage to ban guns in EU while it's not banned in the US. "
EU is separated from the rest of the world by border, there are no customs checkpoints between states or counties in US.

"You don't necessarily have to assume that crime is immobile, some people could be in charge of specifying zones where guns are allowed without a license"
Considering how bureaucracy works in US and level of politicization of the issue, I don't think it's realistic. Also, "without license" is already not universal. Look at gun laws in US by state, there is a lot of regional variation in how you can buy and carry a gun.

"First granting a gun to almost anybody would mean that it would become the main weapon to kill someone (why would you use a risky way to kill someone when you could just use a gun)."
You would think so, but in homicide statistics from US handguns are used vastly more than any other kind of firearm. Due to short range, generally poor accuracy, small ammo capacity and lower stopping power it's the least safe option, compared to rifle or shotgun, so it's comparatively more risky. Especially if there are other armed people around.

"Second, as you've now effectively armed everybody, fights would transform into a shooting feast with the potential to kill both the agressor, the victim and additional bystanders. "
That heavily depends on circumstances, usually homicides (excluding gang-related violence) have personal reasons and as such are very limited, resulting in either perpetrator's surrender, suicide or escape. In case of armed robbery or some sort of hostage situation collateral injuries are either unlikely or least of your concerns. Access to guns probably increases the odds of workplace shootings, but even in US number of those is very small.

"Your argument is basically saying "fights are going to happen anyhow so I should give people the best way to kill eachother, that way it's fair for everybody". "
My argument is that if I meet someone high on synthetic drugs (or unhappy about something I said/done, or he just wants all of my money) and armed with a knife, my current plan is to bleed to death in less than a minute if I'm lucky, suffer an abdominal wound with 70% lethality if I'm not. I'd rather have more options than that.

" if you are a bystander and you see two people fight with their fist, you can probably intervene and stop them from killing each other, but if they are fighting with guns, you're likelier to get killed before you managed to stop one of them"
If they are fighting with guns it will end in about ten seconds. If I have a gun, surviving party will be held at gunpoint until police arrives or killed if self-defense warrants that. If I don't have a gun, I will not get involved in a fight without guns.

"that's how WW1 started and how Russia and USA almost destroyed the world during the cold war"
WWI was an outcome of multiple mutual defense pacts and spectacular failure of diplomacy combined with public's understanding of lethality of war based on obsolete experiences.
Cold War is the example of that deterrence actually worked. Without that we very well could see something like operation Dropshot being carried out.

"You stated you were against cars and pro guns, but all you've said to justify your pro-gun stand is that cars are worse than guns"
My main point was that there is no consistency in arguments used against guns and in favor of cars.

If emotional argument (i.e. every single life is invaluable and any loss of life should be prevented) is used, then cars AND guns should be banned, along with a very long list of other items.

If utilitarian argument is used for both cars and guns, then legally-owned guns are fine as they are in US (given number of their defensive uses), provided that issue of organized crime is addressed.
Currently you're the only one who offered any consistent argument, and it's against both guns and cars. Granted, that's an honest approach, but I will not easily agree with you on guns because I know that your arguments so far are either factually wrong or at least debatable. That doesn't make me pro-gun, but rather not convinced to be against guns.
I think at very least we can agree that it's strange to worry about mass shootings (a very small fraction of gun-related deaths) and ignore the tens of thousands of fatalities that are just a side-effect of convenient transportation.

Also, ban on semi-automatic rifles, which is currently championed by Democrats in US, is idiotic (or blatantly political) because it's the source of least number of firearms-related deaths in both US and Russia. Hence I've mentioned that in Russia cause du jour is not a limit on gun ownership (there's almost nothing left to limit), but instead further abolition of privacy.

@comrade_Comrade Also, I just thought about it a little more and I'm not convinced the self-defense argument is an utilitarian argument. How do you use a gun for self-defense ? Do you use it to kill somebody ? It doesn't really seem like this has good utility value. For example if you kill someone that is robbing you, it seems overall worse than if you just let him robb you. A self-defense tool should allow you to stop the agressor without killing him if you want it to have good utility value, otherwise, you are just trading murder for murder in the best case scenario and crime for murder the rest of the time.
I get that all of that is debatable, like killing a person that kills a lot of people must have some utility value, and I suppose you can prevent a robbery without killing the robber with a gun, but somehow the cases where a gun is actually more helpful than let's say a stun-gun for example seem rather small to grant guns a utility value at self-defense.

'@Isdaril' "How do you use a gun for self-defense ?"
Threaten or kill someone who tries to threaten or kill either you or someone around you.
Limits of self-defense are usually described in local laws, in some cases it's ok to cave in burglar's skull with a baseball bat, provided that you didn't hit too many times.

"For example if you kill someone that is robbing you"
If criminal is unarmed, you can either scare him away or hold at gunpoint. If you shoot an unarmed man and can't prove that he physically attacked you, it's jail time for you.
Armed robbery by definition involves threat of death or injury by either a gun or melee weapon, in that case use of deadly force in return is perfectly valid.

"A self-defense tool should allow you to stop the agressor without killing him if you want it to have good utility value"
There is no such self-defense weapon. Tasers and pepper spray can get you killed or maimed if they don't work, and they often don't work. Best explanation about tasers is this video - https://youtu.be/6yaie4bzsFI . For pepper spray you can search youtube for words "oc redman", then remember that spray effectiveness is affected by range, wind and rain. Aslo, using spray in an enclosed space means everyone in it will feel the effect, including the user.
That's the reason why in US, for example, cops try using tasers or other less-lethal options when they are covered by someone using the actual gun.

"Less-lethal" guns and/or ammunition are unreliable - weaker cartridge means that they will be ineffective against target at range, using cover (i.e. chair, piece of plywood, etc.) or just wearing winter or leather jacket. Stronger cartridge means that someone at close range and wearing only a t-shirt can get all sorts of lethal or nearly lethal trauma like pierced lungs, brain damage, damage to liver or kidneys.

Also, this happened recently: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/police_sabre-wielding_kuopio_suspect_a_finnish_student_with_no_criminal_record/11000326
I'm actually waiting to see if there will be a serious proposal to ban or limit use and possession of sword-like objects in Finland.

@comrade_Comrade "Armed robbery by definition involves threat of death or injury by either a gun or melee weapon, in that case use of deadly force in return is perfectly valid."
You kinda missed my whole point : I'm not talking about valid response or law making, I'm talking about gun utility value as a self-defense tool in the big picture not on the inidvidual level. And was wondering in which cases this value was positive. Let's go into details :
- Robbery : even if this is armed robbery, you can suppose that the robber is just trying to steal from you not kill you. So if you either end up killing him or worse you end up both dead BECAUSE you had a gun to defend yourself then you'll agree with me that the utility value of the said gun was negative because a dead person is worse in the whole picture than a robbed one. So the utility value is positive only if you manage to somehow prevent him from robbing you without killing him, and a gun doesn't seem like the best tool to do that.
- Basically any other crime that is not murder or mass murder ends up being the same that robbery
- Murder, ok so this one is slightly positive, in most cases you'll end up with a dead person, but the fact that the murderer may end up dead might discourage further murders. Also, I suppose in some cases you may end up in a stalemate. Still sometimes it might end up negative if both you and the murderer end up dead.
- Mass murders, now we are talking of either mass shooting or serial killing and in this case only, the simple fact that you kill the murderer has a utility value because he won't kill anymore once he's dead.

Of all that it seems that only the mass murder case is really on the positive side, all the other cases end up either neutral or negative. So the question is how many mass murderers were stopped by an armed citizen and how it compares with the rest of the crimes/offenses.

"There is no such self-defense weapon."
Well, as stated in the comics, I doubt that the weapon industry wouldn't be able to find a solution given sufficient incentives. If this was really that important of a problem, I probably would go in that direction.

'@Isdaril' "Robbery : even if this is armed robbery, you can suppose that the robber is just trying to steal from you not kill you. So if you either end up killing him or worse you end up both dead BECAUSE you had a gun to defend yourself then you'll agree with me that the utility value of the said gun was negative because a dead person is worse in the whole picture than a robbed one. "
That's not necessarily the case. First of all, armed robbery is "not just trying to steal" - it has to be a threat of death. Such threat necessarily means that once in a while it will result in death or injury of a victim, and criminal escaping unharmed will increase number of iterations. Criminal getting killed or apprehended through threat of death from a victim or passer by not only prevents repeated attempts by that criminal, it creates deterrent for next one who would try. If both end up dead, I see it as a problem of having a gun that is either not lethal enough or wasn't used aggressively or skillfully enough.
Secondly, armed robbery is just a convenient example. There are also assault (where the whole point is to cause death or injury to the victim), burglary (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf - I'll point out specifically table 20 at page 10) and rape. While burglary is not as clear cut, I'm pretty sure that in cases of assault and rape you can't realistically say that not resisting is a better option.
Thirdly, while I do believe that rehabilitation is possible for *some* criminals, practically countries like US and Russia have difficulties with that. For number of reasons (most of which are organized crime culture, fairly primitive prison system and convicted felon status limiting employment upon release) prison often encourages repeat offense even if criminal is apprehended without injury. It's a cynical view, but I can't agree to assigning the same value to life of law abiding victim and that of a violent criminal.

"I doubt that the weapon industry wouldn't be able to find a solution given sufficient incentives"
There is an industry that supplies riot police, they put a lot of thinking into less-lethal weapons. So far the best option seems to be a 40mm grenade launcher with "impact round". Fancy stuff like microwave emitters has no chance to become man-portable, and I don't think that realistic way to non-lethally disrupt human nervous system is even in development. Fundamentally it's a physics problem where you always arrive to the issue if imparting just enough energy to the target, when physical characteristics of target and environment are not even close to being uniform.
Also, weapon mentioned in comics is actually terrible for individual self defense. It requires physical strength, a lot of space to maneuver and, ideally, multiple people to restrain a single assailant. Impractical for police, terrible for civilian use.

Edit: had to look through the thread to see if I've inserted correct link, thread's length shows how far down the rabbit hole we went. I salute your patience and willingness to argue in good faith.

@comrade_Comrade "Criminal getting killed or apprehended through threat of death from a victim or passer by not only prevents repeated attempts by that criminal, it creates deterrent for next one who would try."
Yes I agree that some times all go according to plan and you do manage to apprehend the aggressor without killing him. But my point was that I don't think those successses outweight the times when you end up with one dead person or even two (maybe I'm wrong though as I've got no idea about the frequency of both those events chances of happening).
Also yes it can creates deterrent for other people, but again, you're just looking at the bright side, it could also prompt the future agressors to carry more weapons and be more ready to use them when attempting this kind of offense because they know they could get caught or killed otherwise. Again, do the benefits outweight the losses ? This is not that obvious.

"While burglary is not as clear cut, I'm pretty sure that in cases of assault and rape you can't realistically say that not resisting is a better option."
On a purely utilitarian reasoning, I would argue that this is debatable only if you think that injuries or rape are worse than death (because every life is worth the same on an utilitarian PoV) otherwise it is not and killing your agressor by defending yourself has value only if the agressor intends to reiterate his offense/crime (which is not necessarily the case for every offense). That's why I made a special case that i called mass-murderer (maybe serial murderer would be a better name). Also I supposed that a crime that was not a murder attempt was not supposed to end up with someone dead but it is not necessarily the case. And there are a lot of cases you're omitting which are offences without violence in which case having a gun for self-defense has almost always negative utility.
NB: I don't know what your reference was supposed to prove but the table 20 only expands on household burglaries (I didn't have time to read the paper completely so I may have misread things) that have cases of violence which represents only 8% of the total of burglaries. On those 8%, only 10% of cases do end up with people with serious injuries so a little less than 1%, making my case all the more stronger, because it seems that non-violent offenses are the norm and violent ones the exception.

Ultimately I agree that it is debatable, but my main point was that it is not that easy to prove that self-defense with guns has a positive utility value because a lot (most of the time it would seem to me) of times it seems like it has a negative value in the big picture, the big question being if the positive examples outweight the negative ones, also it is probably dependent of your own moral system (do you think grave injury to be worse than death, do you believe every life to be of the same value...).
NB : Of course, it always has utility value on the individual level, but there is something in game theory that is called the "price of anarchy" which basically says that if every independent individual tries to maximize his own utility function, you end up with a less than optimal global utility. Classical examples include the prisonner's dilemma or traffic jams.

'@Isdaril' "But my point was that I don't think those successses outweight the times when you end up with one dead person or even two (maybe I'm wrong though as I've got no idea about the frequency of both those events chances of happening)."
Earlier we've seen the claim (link about various studies of defensive gun use) where it was estimated that number of gun self-defense episode is at least in tens of thousands per year, at very least. Two more points for comparison:
Point one: "In 2012, there were only 259 justifable homicides involving a gun. For the fve-year period 2008 through 2012, there were only 1,108 justifable homicides
involving a gun. [For additional information see Table One: Firearm Justifable Homicides by State, 2008-2012.]"
Point two: FBI shows number of 12765 murders in 2012, of those 8855 committed with firearms (predominantly handguns).
To me the fact that lowest estimate of defensive use is greater than total number of homicides (justifiable, which include some of the shooting by police, and not) indicates that lethality of most self-defense situations is not that high.
From anecdotal evidence I'd say that mutual death is very unlikely, whoever is getting hit first isn't going to return effective fire.

"it could also prompt the future agressors to carry more weapons and be more ready to use them when attempting this kind of offense because they know they could get caught or killed otherwise"
Extra weapons will not improve outcome for criminal. Switching knife for a handgun may improve chances somewhat, but using it requires commitment to a more severe crime. If victim successfully resists the attempt of robbery, it's safer to run away and try someone else than to kill the victim and risk 20 years to life in prison for murder.
Not only prison sentence is greater, there will be more effort put into investigation . There is both practical and psychological barrier to that kind of escalation. Well, unless it happens in place like Baltimore.

"I would argue that this is debatable only if you think that injuries or rape are worse than death"
As an old Soviet joke says "terrible end is better than endless terror".
Non-sexual assault or violent rape often result in psychological and physical damage that may affect victim for the rest of life. Set of outcomes (victim being strangled or beaten to a point of brain damage, trauma resulting in full paralysis or extreme disfigurement, certain kinds of organ damage, etc.) is literally worse than death because they means victim will spend the rest of life in suffering.
There is a wider set of outcomes that is, technically, not as bad, but requires long process of rehabilitation and may still affect the rest of victim's life. Worst case scenario is that psychological damage leads to suicide or heavy substance abuse which, practically speaking, are almost the same.

" (because every life is worth the same on an utilitarian PoV)"
I will disagree with that. "Worth" implies either economic or moral judgement, both of those which are generally not on criminal's side. Well, I can think of few moral exceptions, but they're not really applicable for regular criminal activity.

"And there are a lot of cases you're omitting which are offences without violence in which case having a gun for self-defense has almost always negative utility."
Armed self-defense within the limits of the law necessarily requires reasonable fear of death or serious injury, even if in some places that rule is relaxed for cases of defense against home invasion. Cases where no threat of violence exists are omitted from an argument about self-defense by definition.

"that have cases of violence which represents only 8% of the total of burglaries. On those 8%, only 10% of cases do end up with people with serious injuries so a little less than 1%, making my case all the more stronger, because it seems that non-violent offenses are the norm and violent ones the exception."
Or, to put it in perspective, burglaries resulted in approximately 1.6 thousand rapes and 5.6 thousand serious injuries per year. While percentages are small, overall number of home invasions is vast. While most of those do not require armed self-defense, those that do are important. Threat of armed self-defense in minor cases means that either police can be notified in time or at least crime in progress can be stopped, in serious cases that means victim is not getting raped or tortured.

"Ultimately I agree that it is debatable, but my main point was that it is not that easy to prove that self-defense with guns has a positive utility value because a lot (most of the time it would seem to me) of times it seems like it has a negative value in the big picture, the big question being if the positive examples outweight the negative ones,"
Yes, that would be a tar pit of an argument, mainly because of scale necessary to account for all the effects and considerations. I would say that it's impossible to avoid making moral arguments one way or another, so pre-existing moral stance will necessarily determine the outcome.
As an example:
" dependent of your own moral system (do you think grave injury to be worse than death,"
As previously explained: sometimes yes.

"do you believe every life to be of the same value...). "
No, on economic, practical and moral scale.
So, two of those considerations necessarily inform my view of the problem.

I could write a lot about game theory and how evolution (even before homo sapiens was a thing) dealt with it biologically and socially, but short version is that human rationality is bounded by both cognitive imperfection and psychological traits that vary throughout the population. That means that there will be no uniform moral reasoning, and most practical solutions rely on that reasoning implicitly.
If we arrived to a point where our moral stances are different, there will be nowhere else to go.

@comrade_Comrade ""do you believe every life to be of the same value...). "
No, on economic, practical and moral scale. "
Well most moral systems don't though... Because life's worth is highly subjective, it is pretty hard to value one life more than another in an objective manner (and utilitarianism as an accounting moral theory certainly works that way).
On a practical and economic PoV it is debatable too. For example most terrible leaders never killed anybody, leaving the despicables acts themselves to no-name soldiers. But who's the real culprit, the actual killer or the ruler who decided people had to die ? Is the soldier really a bad person when he never really had a choice in what he had to do ?
Is a billionaire that built his wealth by enslaving children and polluting the environment a good person ? The orthodox economic view says he is, but I think he's not. All in all it's much more simpler to count a life as a life and be done with it. That being said, that does mean that a life that ends people lives is better dead (because if I count all lives as equal then a people that kills people has a negative value unless you prevent him from doing so), so part of your reasoning still stands, but it just doesn't translate to other minor offenses that easily.
On a side note most criminal activities have an economic value. It is illegal, but they do provide a service for their customers (like providing people with drugs, alcohol, weapons...). It could be argued that some of those are beneficial for the society as a whole, just not accepted by the government (the classic example would be a smuggler providing food in a dictatorial state, but even in more democratic societies, there are examples that kinda work, like providing weed to help with psycholigical pain). On the other end, some "respectable" businesses have a negative moral value like those who don't respect their employees rights or that are polluting the environment.

Now about the self defense argument, I suppose the first good question would be to wonder wether there is a correlation between gun ownership and crime rate (not violent crime). If there is no such thing, then it seems rather unlikely that this is a good argument to a pro-gun stance. If there is then we'll have to wonder wether this is causality or something else (consequence, simpson paradox... ) and then we would have to ponder wether the benefits are worth the losses (the offenders killed or seriously injured, the suicides, the accidents...) . Sadly, I didn't find much about that and studies seem to be contradicting themselves wether they are pro or anti gun.

My opinion on the subject at this point is that guns probably don't really have a big impact on crime (wether positively or negatively) BUT they do have an impact in the total death toll (suicides and accidents) so I'm probably slightly in favor of anti-gun policies (though considering the amount of those death, I suppose if I had to choose someone to elect based on that, this probably wouldn't be a deciding factor).
Also at a personnal level (and this is completely subjective and probably a little bit irrational), I feel safer knowing there is not a gun in every single house, and I feel very uncomfortable when I'm next to people who wear weapons (policemen, soldiers). So I suppose it's a good thing I don't live in Russia or the US.

'@Isdaril' "On a practical and economic PoV it is debatable too. "
It's simpler, really. Mundane murderer costs society a life of the victim (and to victim that cost is all the victim has) and cost of murderer's punishment or rehabilitation. Thief does same, just at lesser extent. Career criminal no longer produces value for society, such person's only product is disruption. When criminality stems from pathological personality, even after rehabilitation normal function of such person in society is impossible. People's attitude towards this is fairly universal and was codified even in earliest laws. At that basic level statement holds true.

"I suppose the first good question would be to wonder wether there is a correlation between gun ownership and crime rate (not violent crime)"
There is an obvious correlation: spree killers reliably pick gun free zones and there was a number (admittedly small, but hey - gun free zones) of attempted mass shootings in US that were stopped by armed civilians.
Also, I'll remind of extra benefits like population more ready for military service, greater deterrence against government's overreach and protection in case of law enforcement failure or insufficiency (see also: Roof Koreans or, more recent example, London riots where Turkish community used force to chase away looters). In case of US, it's also the idea that right once achieved should not be given up easily.

"the suicides, the accidents"
Suicides and accidents happen anyway. Suicide is either mental health problem and should be addressed as such, or a conscious choice which I don't see reason to oppose that. Accidents that involve only the owner are owner's own achievement and reward. Accident that victimize people other than owner should be treated as any other such things (i.e. charges of criminal negligence), and, returning to my original point, vastly greater number of such events happen on the road.

"Also at a personnal level (and this is completely subjective and probably a little bit irrational), I feel safer knowing there is not a gun in every single house, and I feel very uncomfortable when I'm next to people who wear weapons "
Anecdotal evidence for anecdotal evidence. Considering I know some ways in which a person can ruin another person's life without even using illegal methods ("there but for the grace of God go I"), legally armed people are the last of my concerns.
Also, for a number of years my father owned a hunting shotgun (a really fancy for Soviet Union, a double barrel Remington and a box of shells). He promised to beat the crap out of me if I so much as touch the gun or the ammunition and it was stored out of my reach. My only thought about it is that it's a pity I didn't get to do a bit of sports shooting with it. I know that if I'll eventually settle outside of the city, there will be more than one Saiga in my house.

@comrade_Comrade "There is an obvious correlation: spree killers reliably pick gun free zones and there was a number (admittedly small, but hey - gun free zones) of attempted mass shootings in US that were stopped by armed civilians."
This isn't really correlation though, this is just you finding a convenient example to prove your belief. But even if this were true and gun-free zones had actually more crimes overall, this would prove nothing about how it would affect the entire country crime rate if it was entirely gun-free.
Your argument is to say that because people that can't defend themselves are preys to crimes and offenses, then if everybody would have such means then crime would not happen. But this reasoning is obviously flawed because it doesn't seem to apply in real life. The best proof being that while almost everybody in the US posess a gun, crimes are 3 times more likely to happen than in France where regular citizen seldom have such things.
Think of it that way : if you've got a robber in a room of 15 people. If one of those people is an aged one, then he is most likely to get robbed, but then even if the 15 people are aged, only one person will get robbed because the robber will most likely failed to flee if he tries to robb a second one, also maybe robbing one person is enough for him that day. This is an imperfect comparison, and it's probably way more complex than that. But it seems crime does behave more in a systemic way than in an opportunistic one. So think more of this question as such : "Has gun ownership an impact on that systemic crime rate or not ?". And the answer is not that easy to find out because as I said, USA is a country with a lot of crimes but also a high gun ownership (the highest of any country). But does that mean gun ownership has no impact (or even a negative one) or does that mean the crime rate would be higher if it were not for all those guns ? Hard to say, more so because what we can compare are very different countries in which the differences observed could come from almost anything else, an historic measure between the two variables in different countries would be interesting but I'm not sure gun ownership is that closely registered in any country so it's probably hard to find out too (finding out a correlation or an inverse one, could still be simpson's paradox at work, but at least we would have something tangible).

"Suicides and accidents happen anyway."
Sure they do (well actually, suicides often become suicide attempts when they don't involve a gun), but they are way less deadly if they do not involve guns. That is why deadly accidents and suicides are positively correlated with gun ownership.
Also it would be quite irrational to incriminate cars for it but not guns.

'@Isdaril' "The best proof being that while almost everybody in the US posess a gun, crimes are 3 times more likely to happen than in France where regular citizen seldom have such things. "
a) not true, only about 40% of population is armed and in many states their right to carry a gun is limited by local law (state or county) or rules of certain establishment (aka church, shopping mall or cinema theater may prohibit concealed carry).
b) crime rate is not uniform across different states.
c) look specifically at Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Maryland, Illinois, California and, as a bonus, Vermont and South Dakota.
d) I used looting and spree killings as examples of crime that overwhelmingly succeeds in absence of armed resistance. It's a very limited example, but one that is undeniable.

But since you're interested in systemic reasons, again I'll point to an organized crime. US is already having a problem with drugs that are manufactured or brought into country and sold completely illegally. Let's imagine that an absolutely effective confiscation of legally owned guns happens overnight. That means that 1) organization that already specializes in procurement and distribution of illegal goods just got a new item on the menu, 2) those guns will be only available to criminals connected to such organizations, 3) guns will be either military in origin or scratch-built to have similar functionality. So while number of guns in possession will vastly decrease, number of illegally owned guns will be unaffected or even increase. Even worse, you just gave organized crime a boost, because now there is a big incentive in being connected to a large gang or criminal network.

"Sure they do (well actually, suicides often become suicide attempts when they don't involve a gun), but they are way less deadly if they do not involve guns"
Nope, I will not trust that. I have some personal experience with topic at hand and firmly convinced that the only thing that counts is seriousness of intent. Methods that are not reliant on access to guns can be either no less lethal, or damaging to a point where there failed attempt is worse than completed, or will lead to a second (or third) attempt. Someone seeking for attention will use self-harm or threat of suicide, someone serious enough will opt for gun, noose, gas or poison. Oh, and for a bit of comical circling back, car is a suicide tool as well.

"That is why deadly accidents and suicides are positively correlated with gun ownership. Also it would be quite irrational to incriminate cars for it but not guns."
Oh, I incriminate both. Number of fatal gun-related accidents per year in US looks to be in very low thousands or high hundreds. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is comparable with number of people killed and permanently blinded by angle grinders.

@comrade_Comrade Please, no more strawmen. I'm allergic to strawmen in debates.

'@DarkMage7280' I must have missed the part where this was a debate. You've made a statement that is completely fact-free and based on emotion, I've called out it's inherent hypocrisy. The only person in this comment section who argued in good faith actually agreed with my position on cars more than I do myself.

@DarkMage7280

You know thoughts and prayers. But what the NRA acolytes don't say is that the prayers are for the Blood God.

Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!

In most places child sacrifice went of style several millennium ago but not here in the U.S.

Children are to be sacrificed on the altar of gun rights.

@celtic_twilight when you make it sounds like a Khornate plot it weirdly makes more sense. So where would you put Slaanesh, Nurgle and Tzeentch in US Politics?

@Ikechi1 Well Tzeentch is obviously the organized christian republicans that try to make their beliefs into law. Slaanesh is the brain washing conservative talking heads that are literally the only way the right delivers their spin and conspiracies. And Nurgle is the victim blaming, anti-abortion, rape culture and lack of any empathy to the poor that the right propagates.

@DarkMage7280

You claim: Americans "declare all Europeans 'freedom-hating socialist commies', not in the cheeky brotherly way you once used to, but with a seething, hateful sincerity."

How you explain the ongoing support in America for Bernie Sanders?

Or maybe you can't explain this quite so easily?

@NaCltyGrl The candidate that handily lost to the candidate that lost to 5he current President, thereby denoting he really didn’t have that much support at all? That Bernie Sanders.

@TuxedoCartman

After all of the Democratic National Committee foibles, you say that he "handily lost?"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ct-dnc-sanders-glanton-talk-20160725-column.html

Ok.

As a US citizen, I apologise for all the stupid Americans posting today about their guns. Please do not allow them in your country. But if you do let them in, keep their neck locked in a sasumata.

@EricD Please don't ever presume to apologize for me, or for any of my fellow citizens who understand the Bill of Rights.

@Mnementh : You don't seem to understand how embarrassing this is in the eyes of the international community.

@Mnementh If you stop assuming that just because a piece of paper says something, it's somehow the smart thing to do.

Fuck guns, more guns won't solve anything and only increase killings. End of discussion.

@solstickan Says the guy with China as his avatar? A lot of Hong Kongers are desperately wishing right now they had a piece of paper that said something that people believed in.

@Dorsai Who gives a crap about an avatar? If that's your try to seem superior because of a avatar of China from this comic, then you're pretty sad to be honest. I'll change to DPRK if it makes you happier?

Yes, the people of Hong Kong are fighting for their freedom, but as you might have noticed they are not using guns or violence to force their will, because if they start using violence it makes them just as bad as the shitty Chinese government.

Like I said, just because something was written on a piece of paper ~240 years ago doesn't mean it has any use in today's society which is vastly different from the world back then.

As an example, many Americans claim to be christian, but if they are... then why aren't they following the Bible 100% to the letter? Death penalty for adultery as an example? Because people at some point decided it was to extreme... and changed the rules.. which means that can be done to the, oh so sacred, US constitution as well.

@solstickan LOL. Did I hit a sore spot there? You have to admit, a guy with a Communist stooge as an avatar advocating for disarmament is a bit of an odd look, given the murderous history of Communists.

Beyond that I'll just say that the US Constitution may be 240 years old, but human liberty never goes out of style.

@Dorsai Sore spot, not really, but it seemed like you were trying to put a label on me based on a cartoon avatar, which you have to admit is a bit silly if that was the case. :P I'll gladly make fun of communist china, and I feel that the chinese avatar in SaTW does that pretty well. :P

Well, unfortunately the US doesn't seem to give a hoot about freedom and liberty since it's trying to control womens bodies, so while the US claims to be the country of freedom, actions seem show quite the opposite, but I digress.

I don't think either of us will change opinions on guns in a comment field on SaTW, no matter if we're for or against. :P

'@solstickan' "Yes, the people of Hong Kong are fighting for their freedom, but as you might have noticed they are not using guns or violence to force their will"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAfxIfxu6Co
I can't see it as clearly as you, are those bricks at 0:45 peaceful and non-violent?

@comrade_Comrade Yes, you can probably find such footage from many demonstrations over the world, but put into context of what the police and the Chinese government have been doing against the people in terms of violence during the last 13 weeks, are you surprised they start to throw shit back at the police? The demonstrations were not using any violence when they first begun the protests.

'@solstickan' you told there was no violence. Were those bricks non-violent? I don't care if they're justified or not.

@comrade_Comrade Right, your're one of those kinds of twats.

Read the fucking news. The protests were peacful from the protesters side up until 4-5 days ago, so I was still correct that the protests have been peaceful up until now.

Now sod off, I'd dont give a shit about your "I only want to prove you wrong"-bullshit.

'@solstickan' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsYMznJdCok
Two weeks ago. Maybe you should start watching news.
Such non-violence from them, much civility from you. Wow.

@Mnementh - You do not understand the US Constitution. Look up the meaning of "militia".

“Battleground America - One nation, under the gun.”
Jill Lepore, The New Yorker, April 23, 2012
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

@EricD

Don't try and confuse the fanatics with facts. They want their unlimited guns and something like the constitution isn't going to stop them. ;)

@Mnementh The Second Amendment was written in a time when guns took four minutes to load, right after a war where everyone was a militia. The US practically didn't have an organized army, just a glorified militia, when a school shooting was unthinkable, and where people hunted more for food. The law is outdated at best. So please don't set a bad reputation for Americans, cause it's people like you who forward that stereotype.
Sincerely,
A Concerned American

We already have a problem in our country with getting our police officers, who get extensive training in how and when to properly use their weapon, to use their weapon in the proper circumstances with skill and forethought. Our police are not taught to deescalate, but to "shoot if they feel threatened in any way."

How in the world do people expect teachers, with a minimal amount of firearms training and even less in deescalation, to do better?

@Tarmaque

Because a school shooting is already an incident that's escalated way out of control?

Personally, if you don't think arming the teachers is a good idea, fine, not all of us can be trusted with guns, but why not just teach the students and teachers to bum rush any active shooter and beat him senseless with whatever heavy, blunt object is available?

@Eboreg Interestingly, school shootings have not "escalated way out of control." They're actually less common than they were 25 years ago or so. The difference is how the shooters these days are armed, and the higher media attention they garner.

That last bit is the important bit. Every time there's a school shooting these days the media talk it up as if it's a huge and growing problem. It most certainly is a problem, but if you look at the statistics it isn't "growing." School security measures are far better than they were 30 years ago, and faculty intervention with problematic students is a lot better. Take it from me. I know a lot of teachers (My family is in education. Dad was a teacher, my Mom was a school secretary, my Aunt is a school librarian, another Aunt works in special education, and my Grandmother and her sister were both classroom aids. My Dad was also a principal for about seven years before he went back to teaching in the late 80's. By the way, of all of them and all the teachers I know through them, nobody advocates for arming teachers. They all think it's an insane policy.)

@Tarmaque Anyone who thinks that more guns in a school is a good idea needs to read up on Joseph Zamudio.

During the Rep. Gabby Giffords shooting, a man and woman subdued the shooter, and the woman picked his firearm up and held him at the shooter at gunpoint. Joseph Zamudio, a concealed-carrier, arrived at the scene late, and incorrectly identified the heroic woman as the shooter. Only through blind, stinking luck and the grace of God did he not shoot her, but instead tried to physically subdue her, before being told he was a flaming moron by everyone else present.

That was in a parking lot in front of a grocery store. Now, picture halls full of scared, screaming kids trying to flee, not knowing where the shooter is, who the shooter is, what lies beyond the shooter (are there armed teachers coming at him from the other way you might hit?) If this is an ideal situation for dealing with a school shooter, hell, why don't we just have grenades that drop from the ceiling when somebody pulls an alarm? There'd be fewer casualties.

@TuxedoCartman Speaking of reading up on Joseph Zamudio, let's all take a moment and do that:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/02/22/good-guy-gun-gabby-giffords-shooting-touts-training-if-teachers-armed/364647002/

What this incident *actually* shows is that concealed carriers tend to think these things through. There was no blind luck or godly grace here, just a guy with a level head on his shoulders helping out.

@Dorsai Keep reading, sparky. Go find he interviews he gave immediately after the fact, where he was incredibly shaken up by the situation he found himself in. Then get a local psychology professor (or, really, any “guy with a level head on his shoulders”) to explain to you how people tend to rationalize their actions the further removed from them they are. Of COURSE an idiot who almost shot the wrong damn person by mistake will now say he was cool and collected and relying on his intense training (pthhh... I’ve taken one of the classes these mouth breathers call “training,” and it’s a joke).

@TuxedoCartman Sure, everyone is shaken up by situations like that - but what matters is what actually happened...and what happened was to the guy's credit. It's a shame that people attempt to twist it otherwise.

@TuxedoCartman Exactly. It's been my experience that most concealed carry nuts are wannabee heroes and/or paranoiacs who shouldn't be trusted with a pointed stick in an emergency, much less a firearm. I myself have a CCP, but I rarely or never carry. Usually only when hiking in the mountains where it's more a defense against animals than people. Even that's probably overkill, although I do recall hiking into an area of extensive active bear sign that scared the poop right out of me.

@Tarmaque
Also worth mentioning is that in many cases, when police officers themselves are put directly in the schools, they end up assaulting the children.
1. They're trained to deal with violent criminals, so that's what they tend to fall back on.
2. Kids (very understandably) resent being treated as default criminals, even if they've never committed a crime. That resentment is focused on the armed officer whose very presence is making the school that much more like a prison. The officer believes they should see him as a respected figure of authority. The children view him as an insult. Friction is inevitable.
3. It's a shit assignment. Most likely handed out for punitive reasons. That makes it all the more likely that the specific officer assigned to your kid's school has impulse, self-control, and temper problems.

@Hinoron You make excellent points, most of which I agree with whole-heartedly and the rest I do not dispute.

@Tarmaque I'm not sure I would call something like half a year extensive, in Sweden they attend the academy for three years before becoming actual police officers.

@solstickan I will note that police officers in the United States have extreme variation in their training, with some officers (such as county sheriffs) having little pre-employment training while others have more than your half a year. However, almost all of them include firearms training prior to employment, and regular supervised practice thereafter. One of the ranges where I shoot is shut down every couple of weeks so the local officers can get their required practice. I don't say this is true everywhere, but it is common. Additionally, a friend of mine shot competition (Bullseye) for many years with a bunch of officers that happened to belong to his club.

Regarding your second amendment, it's interesting how people tend to forget the whole "well regulated militia" thing, and go straight for the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

@Kvaseren "Milita" is 18th Century American society generally consisted of all freemen of given age. In some colonies their weapons were kept in armories, but in most others the individual was required to provide their own & keep them in their home. "Regulation" consisted in what the required weapons were, & periodoc "musters" to make sure they were there as required & inspect their condition.

@Newnetherlander And the point of a Militia in the 18th Century was to server as a defensive force for the nation in the event that it was threatened by a slave revolt, attacks by Native Americans who were angry at being displaced from their lands, or invasion by a foreign country because at the time there wasn't a standing army of professional soldiers.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof : So you get my point; "militia" as mentioned in the Constitution meant the entire body of armed citizenry, not some specialized sub-section of it.

@Newnetherlander Which was rendered superfluous when the United States developed a permanent military of professional soldiers, then rendered even more superfluous by the way in which military weaponry has changed compared to civilian weaponry since the Constitution was written (especially in the 20th Century). Up until the 1980s, the line was widely interpreted by everyone as applying only to militias, which were supposed to be trained and directed by the government- hence, "well regulated." It's only been in the last 40 years than anyone at all has begun pushing the idea of unlimited gun ownership while ignoring what the actually very well defined clause about militias meant.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof : Maybe you should reread my comment then, as your restrictive definitions of both "militia" and "well regulated" are quite wrong.

@Newnetherlander The Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd Amendment four times that the purpose was a "well regulated militia" and further went on to define what constituted one. There was no controversy about that until the late 70s/early 80s when the NRA had an internal power struggle and was taken over by a group of extremists who wanted to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that anyone could own any gun.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof : My point is what a "well regulated militia" ment in the

@ShoggothOnTheRoof : My point is what a "well regulated militia" meant in the 18th century.

@Kvaseren "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The people are the well regulated militia. Take into consideration our country was declared independent from an oppressive empire and then proceeded to fight the said empire with guns the empire tried stripping from the citizens. Granted we had a lot of help from the french, but regardless. Our history shows that the amendment is clearly meant to ensure such oppressive actions are not recreated by our government.

@SirKibbz What I'm referring to is that people point to the second amendment as their reason to have weapons, while forgetting what's really in there. Just shouting "second amendment" without understanding why it was instituted, is not exactly a valid argument. Plenty of people have guns for all the wrong reasons (e.g. to commit crimes), and while having guns to protect oneself from criminals may be a valid reason, they generally don't consider that fewer guns in society overall might be a good thing. Just look at Europe. While there's the occasional shooting or gang war with innocent bystanders, as a general rule we don't fear each other.

One point is mass shootings. They happen at an alarming rate, and apparently mostly when a society has a large number of guns and easy access to them for people who really shouldn't, coupled with widespread fear/hatred of other ethnicities. Add to that irresponsible law enforcement, partisan propaganda, and a lobby with a financial interest in selling guns, and you have a powder keg of a society full of armed, angry, scared people.

"The people are the well regulated militia". Does it look like it is well regulated? Is every gun owner a responsible citizen? If a well regulated militia is the goal, then Switzerland does the job a lot better than the US. and you should draw inspiration from there.

The point of the "well regulated militia" is, as you point out, to prevent government takeover. I'd point to the standard "army/navy/air force vs guy with assault rifle" argument, but the takeover is kinda already happening, just not by force. Look at how the richest 1% is screwing over the rest of the population. Look at the current administration, and the string of scandals that would topple any other administration. It seems to me that the people who hold guns for fear of a government takeover, already is on the side of the government, and point to the other (mostly unarmed) side being what they're afraid of.

@Kvaseren The American Militias of 18th century were a joke. It was the idea that we could have a good supply of conscripts at the ready to deal with trouble. Much of the time they were the local law enforcement, and were used to deal with internal disputes. In truth, Militias were nothing more than drunken, rowdy hooligans with no businesses enforcing the peace, nor on the battlefield. Even General Washington looked down upon Militiamen as incompetent and undisciplined, who were more a liability than an asset (a mob in a panic tend to get in the way of troops who know what they are doing).

Politicians loved keeping them around as muscle, and much of early American history was full of small, largely forgotten (and often bloody) skirmishes between feuding states or political factions. They were also mobilized into disaster relief, but more often than not, order to "shoot looters on sight" usually resulted in them shooting people trying to rescue or recover trapped relatives. They also have a history of shooting striking workers and political protesters, and even engaging in wholesale massacres.

Like a lot of countries, our history is dark. Unfortunately, our pride do not allow us to think about or reflect on such things. We like to pretend that America came from greatness and was always on the right side of history -- history books that contradicts this is gets whitewashed as we cannot deal with shame or guilt.

@Malcadon So clearly times have changed, and what may have seemed a good idea at a time coming out of a successful rebellion, may no longer apply. As you point out, these armed "hooligans" were used more for the wrong purposes than for their original ones.

It's like you've had an "An update for your constitution is ready to be installed" notification, and you just clicked "Remind me later" for over a century.

@Kvaseren Times have not changed too much. We still have a "Militia" problem. Although, right now, its a bunch of paranoid, anti-government white nationalist (Neo-Nazis and the like) hillbillies who think they are above the law. The agencies like the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc, consider militia groups and white nationalists to be a greater threat to national security than groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS/ISIL.

You might have heard of "White Terrorism" on social media due to the mass shooting in Texas, but it was going on since 1995 with the Oklahoma City Bombing. It was a terrorist attack that targeted a federal building, killing over 150 people, many of them children due to it having a daycare center. And the more recent "Bundy Standoff", Militiamen had guns armed at armed federal agents, with their own family in the crossfire so that if there was a shootout, they would become martyrs in "The New Revolution". When that failed, two of them out of frustration gun-down a Walmart in Las Vegas, NV.

While most Americans want reasonable gun-control regulations and do not support the far-right Militia Movement, those white nationalist faggots are not playing with a full deck. They want to destroy the U.S. and change it in their own twisted (white straight protestant boy's club) image!

Tomorrow, six new gun laws go into effect in Texas - all to make it *easier* to carry guns anywhere. U.S. gun nuts are the stupidest people in the world. You would know this if you met them, except most of them are not smart enough to fill out a passport application, so you will probably never meet them unless you visit the ignorant parts of the U.S.
Texas gun laws: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDVMgp_U0AIjMEd?format=jpg&name=large

@EricD -- Truth. It's amazing how many shootings we have and somehow no good guys with guns ever seem to show up. I mean, a shooter went on a rampage in a WALMART in TEXAS for crying out loud, and you're telling me there wasn't ONE person there carrying concealed?

This country simply cannot get over it's wild west fantasy. Nobody seems to understand that actual mass shootings don't exactly go the way they do in movies.

'@longtail4711' "no good guys with guns ever seem to show up"
Are you sure? Did you check?

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view

"In 10 incidents [out of total 50], citizens confronted the shooter. In eight of those incidents, one or more citizens safely
and successfully acted to end the shooting
In four incidents, unarmed citizens confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting. In two
incidents, school staff confronted and restrained the shooter. In one incident, the citizen used
his car to thwart the shooter. In one incident, the citizen persuaded the shooter to surrender
...
In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In
two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In two incidents, the citizens held the
shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived
In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter,
causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting
In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid frearms permit was wounded before he could fre at the
shooter"

@longtail4711 It's very naive to think in terms of of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. In the end, Captain America is just fiction and the only thing that happens when a trigger happy American opens gunfire is that everyone runs for their lives, leaving it up to the police to risk their lives to stop a gunman. No hero in shiny armor will spontaneously show up at a mass slaughter to shoot back. And aren't the gunmen the good guys from their own point of view? Fighting for whatever cause they deem worth using gunfire for?

I wish, if it's ever possible, SATW one day deals with a political movement in Japan that virtually denies what they did until WW2.

@cassert Amen to this. The first time I heard about WW2 deniers in Japan and about Shinzo Abe, my whole image of Japan was almost ruined. Of course, I was younger then. Now I know they're just a loud minority among Japanse. But seriously, it vexes me. I mean, Germany stands up to their history, Austria too. But then you have some Japanese officials trying to play the victims. Sure, the nukes were horrible, but so's mass genocide and sex slavery. Though, as an American, maybe me talking about warcrime deniers rings a bit hollow.

'@cassert' Or at least calls out they fact that they've failed to acknowledge their nations war crimes or apologise for them. And some of them were ABSOLUTLEY horrific, even the Nazis were disgusted by what Japan did in Nanking

@LogicMeister - Except it's not correct to say that Japan hasn't acknowledged their WWII war crimes and not apologized for them. Please do not spread such misinformation. Read up on it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

@cassert - every country has its lunatics. Those loud minorities are troublesome, yes, but a country and its people should not be judged by those minorities. It would be tantamount to calling Americans unenlightened solely because the flat earth movement originated there (and indeed also seems to have most supporters there) - or to claim Sweden is a nazi country because they have a small group of neonazi idiots.

@jakobdam That they are minorities is a common big misconception. The current prime minister Abe is one of a well-known denier, and about 50% of Japanese advocates him and their party. Would you call them minorities just because they are one political group? Remind that Nazi and facist parties are the only ones in there era.

'@jakobdam' Hmmm... interesting, but the people of Japan like to pretend the war crimes never happened, current Prime Minster Abe alluded to the Rape of Nanking once, it nearly cost him his ENTIRE career.

So it's likely that outside of those Formal Apologies, Japan is in complete denial, especially since they have a Shrine to the soldiers who invaded Nanking that still stands to this very day

@cassert This is why I hate Japan and anything that comes out of Japan including Anime/Manga and Sushi.

I would love to find all the anime weeaboos who think Japan is such a cute, cuddly and innocent country and show them what Unit 731 and similar units did during WW2.

@Madcat The value of art is not determined by the quality of the artist.
Anime and manga are highly overrated, but Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece.

'@Xaphan' The KKK film? What makes it a Masterpiece?

@LogicMeister Nothing. It's notable for the innovation that went into its cinematography that had a lasting impact on the way movies were made, but as an actual movie it's just a racist dumpster fire.

'@ShoggothOnTheRoof' Agreed

@Madcat Hating todays generation for what morons did in the 1930's, cool story bro. Please come out more in the open as the racist biggot you are.

How about the US acknowledge and apologise for their war crimes? Such as the nukes, that Japanese prisoners of war just "happened" to have accidents and die during their transports to the prison camps, the collection of body parts as trophies from dead japanse etc.

All side did bad shit, should we all hate everything that comes out of the US because of that? Based on your logic we should.

@solstickan The winners of a war are never guilty of any war crimes, only the losers are. If a country attacks another country unprovoked and wins, some unfortunate individuals of the invaded country will likely face war crime charges if it was a bloody war and political needs call for it. You might argue against this nihilistic truth, but history has proven it, so there's nothing to say about it.

Yes, arming the teachers is an excellent idea, for no teacher has ever had a very bad day ever, and there are certainly no teachers around that wish that they could shoot just a few of their students every now and then. There certainly is no history ever of people with guns going postal no matter what their profession or levels of stress, and there is no stress at all in overcrowded and underfunded schools.

I know! To avoid the problem of teachers potentially going postal we better arm all the students as well!

*starts digging a hole to hide in* It just gets worse and worse around here *gestures at America wildly*

@Dancergirl88 Please make some room for the rest of us! *Leaps in*

@EclipseMaster459 Sure thing! *scoots over to make room*

@Dancergirl88 Thanks! *Digs home to make more room*