DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yes, your countrymen pandered to interest groups and before you knew it, your entire popolus was disarmed. And with your countries history, I would have thought it may have be in yall's best interest to be able to rise up against your government should it go awry. -What me to further explain?
what interest groups are you talking about ? Those who make money by
not selling guns ? Seriously, with the kind of money that is made in the US by gun manufacturers, supported by the NRA, you should be the last to accuse anyone of "pandering to interest groups"
As far as the Hitler comparison is concerned, you should read a history book from time to time. As unfortunate as it may be, Hitler came to power as a result of a democratic process. We have no one to blame but ourselves for that, and no guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens could have prevented it. Thanks for proving Goodwin's Law, btw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_lawAnd btw, german gun laws were much more liberal back then. Some will even argue that those liberal gun laws allowed Hitler's helpers to set up armed paramilitary units to support his political fight.
Ironically, Germany was totally demilitarized, including all the weapons that were privately owned, as a
result of the second world war, out of fear that germany could rise again. In the early days of the newly founded republic, even the police forces did not have firearms on them.
This has changed somewhat today, as the gun laws were changed a couple of times between 1956 and 2002, and private gun ownership is legal to some extent. But it is still only allowed under very specific circumstances.
My guess is that after the horrors of two world wars, germans simply decided that weapons in general are bad, and that we'd try to create a society as peaceful as possible. Never again, we swore, would ware be waged from our lands.
Americans probably had a much different view of guns, given their relatively "good" historic experience with them. You know, the Revolutionary War, the gunslingers of the wild west period, winning the major conflicts of the early 20th century, etc.
We're just different in that regard. Our experience with guns has been overwhelmingly negative. Under those circumstances, is it any wonder our gun laws are how they are ?
You claim that we have become weak, that we have lost the ability to effectively defend ourselves. Against who, I ask you ?
Of course there is gun crime and gun violence in germany, but the statistics would indicate that the situation is very much under control, and that we're not any less safe because of our stricter gun control laws. As a matter of fact, we are one of the safest nations on the face of the earth.
To me, an armed society is a weak society. You may feel strong, and safe personally, because you have a gun, but in reality you have simply given up on the concept of a peaceful society and decided to "win" this fight by simply being more violent than the other guy.
If you feel that is working for you, fine. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. And that's ok. People are different, no big deal.
Every nation is free to draw up the legislation that it feels is suited best for its people.
And btw, I have said numerous times in this debate that I agree that gun-free zones in the US are useless, given the legal situation, and the high number of guns in circulation. But that doesn't mean that it is not possible to make your society safer by reducing the overall number of guns in it.
I have suggested the following experiment: make it mandatory for every adult citizen of the US to carry a firearm at all times. Everyone gets a CWP, no gun-free zones. After 5 years ( or whatever period the stats people suggest ), check the relevant statistics ( gun crime, violent crime, robbery, murder rate per capita, etc ). Then you'll see if more guns really do make a society safer.