The gun thing - a question from a European

[Zooey]

China is a horrific country to live in. The problem is with the violently mentally ill. Connecticut already has quite stringent gun laws. So does Britain. Villains still get them, and people do need to defend themselves.

Exactly.

Let us consider a couple of thoughts that I, as a supporter of the right to keep & bear arms, have discussed with friends & family since the Newtown tragedy:

1. 
   *]The 1st person Adam Lanza encountered at the school was a security guard, who is legally prevented from carrying a gun. If that guard had had a gun, he would almost certainly have been able to shoot Lanza, & the whole story would have been a different one.
   *]Adam Lanza did NOT own the guns he used. He murdered his mother for her guns & went on a killing spree. In other words: He was a violent mentally ill person who would not have been stopped in his search for weapons; he would simply have killed someone else & stolen their weapons.
   *]The number of guns he stole is irrelevant, because, like the rest of us, Lanza only had 2 hands, meaning that he could only hold & shoot two guns at once.
   ]I personally think that Adam Lanza’s mother may well have been afraid for her life, but * being a loving mom) could not accept that the source of the very real danger she sensed all around her was actually fear of her son’s desire to take her life.(and the lives of others)
   ]This follows from #4, above: If she had had a gununder her pillow (as a lot of us in this country do), she would have been able to defend herself against Adam by shooting him. This would be sad, but a lot better than what occurred instead.
   ]This is going to sound snarky, but it remains the truth: The REAL problem is not guns, which (even in America!) have never yet driven themselves to a school & shot anyone; the problem is that the people who want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens are the same geniuses who decided that it should be illegal for school security guards should protect our children with nothing more dangerous than harsh words. (They are also, by the bye, the folks who decided that Adam Lanza & his ilk have the “right” to walk around among us freely without taking their psych meds).
   ]Armed citizens prevent more violent crimes in the USA than Lanza had eaten hot dinners. I heard about another such incident just yesterday; the perpetrator of the crime is dead & the man whom he tried to harm is alive & well and thanking God and our founding fathers that he had his gun in his hand when armed robbers broke in…I only wish this gentleman & his gun could have been the one to confront Lanza just inside/outside the school doors; there would be a whole heckuva lot fewer griving families in CT tonight.
   
   Now this is separate because it doesn’t just sound snarky, it is snarky: You Europeans just hate our American guns until Hitler or Stalin or the next lunatic with political clout takes over your country; then you come crying to us to please come over & shoot them for you. I, for one, feel like maybe, just maybe, it is time to say: “Tough. Suck it up, you all; we don’t want to inflict our guns on you…”. And let’s see how you like what the British did to us a couple hundred years back.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

In a way… I’m kind of getting tired of involving myself (by my choice of course) in these kinds of debates (usually simply not discussions) online. The reason being, similar to the issues of hunting, or celibacy in the priesthood, or religion (as a topic posed by an atheist), people tend to have their minds already made up and are overly emotionally invested in their position.

I suppose I should admit I have strong emotional investment over the issue of being allowed to own one or more guns as well. That being that my emotions support my pro-right to own gun views.

But I recognize there are costs and benefits to everything. Or so I have been informed more than once in school of this. An example might be Windmills for green energy reasons (noise pollution may be the cost incurred). Another example might be chemotherapy. The question usually is, do the benefits outweigh the costs or risks?

If you read at least half this article you’ll see that supposedly 400,000 United Statesians have been killed by firearms over the course of 15 or 17 years: jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/treat-gun-violence-like-disease-medical-college-expert-says-la843qj-184351771.html

The medical community in both the United States and Brazil are already ahead of the public in tracking the kinds of bullets being used in most gun shooting injuries in their respective nations.

To my knowledge very few United Statesian rolled into the ERs for gun shot wounds are, or have been, shot with 5.56 or 7.62 rounds, the kinds of rounds fired out of M-16s and AK-47s respectively.

Most United Statesians when shot are shot with handguns. Most manner of deaths in homicides in the United States are shootings, and once again from handguns I believe.

It might be noted here that U.S. law enforcement has increased the size of their rounds over the last several years in accordance it would seem, with the civilian population increasingly using larger sized rounds (e.g., move from 9mm rounds to .40 rounds).

When I was shot by a cop I was hit 3 times in the upper body with .40 rounds from his drawn semi-automatic pistol. This was tempered from their training which would have put 2 more rounds in my head too given the distance I was from him. Given the size of the rounds and number of times I was hit the doctors and surgeons said I was lucky to have lived. A cop friend of my brothers said I was lucky to have lived by not having had the cop shoot me twice more in the head.

I’m getting here to a forensic point about ballistics, physical trauma, tactics, threat, and training.

Even if we assume civilians allowed only hand guns, trained to respond to threat with firearms like police, and M-4 style and other similar type rifles are outlawed, I still very much doubt a small child around the ages of those gunned down at Sandy Hook elementary school, would survive one round from a 9mm or .40 caliber or .45 caliber striking them in the chest, let alone 3 times to the upper body.

I was reading in one of my forensic books that 3rd degree burns covering 20% of a small child and elderly persons’ body, and 50% of the body of a regular adult, is regarded as usually resulting in a fatality. That’s kind of why I doubt a child with a much smaller body than mine could survive a tempered 3 rounds to the upper body from larger rounds like 9mm ammo.

There is the issue of carrying several clips on you with a semi-automatic pistol as well. One can easily fire off 30 or 60 rounds in less than 60 seconds with a semi-automatic pistol if they wanted too. That just with a single pistol let alone being armed with 2 or 3 pistols loaded.

Those that have never fired a semi-automatic pistol and dropped and reloaded the clips don’t seem to realize this. But they often have these hard opinions akin to non-Catholics that blame the Catholic sex scandal on priestly celibacy.

There is not just “a few” psychos running around in the United States. I would argue the U.S. has been under cultural decline, and social pathologies like child abuse, child abduction, serial killings, and larger portions of the population responding violently over road rage and perceived slights have skyrocketed over several decades.

This is not to deny there are costs incurred with having a gun culture like the U.S.

Sandy Hook and the 400,000 Americans killed with guns over 15 or 17 years is a part of that cost.

But with the number of armed violent United Statesians (tens of thousands probably in any city with a population over 100,000) driving and walking around the communities of the U.S., there may well be a different cost to disarming the large population less prone to commit homicide.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Addendum to post #42 with respects to the 4th to the last paragraph in that post.

This is a printed source I’ll use to provide some evidence for my assertion. While admittedly an old article dealing with what some might write off as a parochial issue, I would just respond that the cities were not limited to Milwaukee, and that to this day “angry” citizens - and not gang and gang violence or drug dealing murders - are the leading reasons behind homicides in Milwaukee.

nytimes.com/2006/02/12/national/12homicide.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 12, 2006

MILWAUKEE — One woman here killed a friend after they argued over a brown silk dress. A man killed a neighbor whose 10-year-old son had mistakenly used his dish soap. Two men argued over a cellphone, and pulling out their guns, the police say, killed a 13-year-old girl in the crossfire.

And while such crime in the 1990’s was characterized by battles over gangs and drug turf, the police say the current rise in homicides has been set off by something more bewildering: petty disputes that hardly seem the stuff of fistfights, much less gunfire or stabbings.

Suspects tell the police they killed someone who “disrespected” them or a family member, or someone who was “mean mugging” them, which the police loosely translate as giving a dirty look. And more weapons are on the streets, giving people a way to act on their anger.

Police Chief Nannette H. Hegerty of Milwaukee calls it "the rage thing."

"We’re seeing a very angry population, and they don’t go to fists anymore, they go right to guns," she said. “A police department can have an effect on drugs or gangs. But two people arguing in a home, how does the police department go in and stop that?”

The bold my emphasis.

Very old article, but still relevant for today so far, I believe.

 

[TimeEntrance]

That such incidents happen points to an abject failure of government to control the violent in society.

I would argue Americans may arguably - on the whole, not every single individual - be more violent than most other nations on the whole, outside of the Americas. Chile probably being an exception with its capital city safer than many European cities and nations.

In my view the United States has a more aggressive culture than many - if not most - of the rest of the world. I’ve read years ago, that no other nation on the planet, so divides it’s citizens between losers and winners as that of the United States. I think that may hold a lot of explanatory power as to why the U.S. - one nation on earth - has half or well over half of all mass shootings that occur on planet earth. Nations reduced to civil war not withstanding.

The typical liberal and conservative response in the United States is to deride it’s own citizenry - or more likely those deemed “the losers” - as having X, Y, or Z too easy.

For the liberal it’s “too easy access to guns” or certain types of guns. For conservatives everyone just gets everything for free (except them making the comment or “their generation”) and everything is handed out freely in the U.S.

I would argue that the competitive life in the U.S. - especially as it tends to demote the values of family, authentic friendships, and community - can be quite daunting relative to many nations on earth including many in the impoverished, developing world.

I was just talking to the Mexican woman the other day that cuts my hair. Asking her about Christmas and its traditions in Mexico I was slightly surprised to hear her say she likes it better in Mexico than in Milwaukee (also learned the Three Kings give out gifts - and according to her, probably more than whats typical here in the U.S. - to the kids in January and not a Santa Claus at the end of December). According to her it’s a much larger family affair in Mexico.

Supporting my “thesis” I would offer the cultural differences between how the British run their boot camp for Royal Marines as opposed to how the U.S. runs its boot camp for U.S. Marines. And this greatly surprised me. Shock would be a better word. Because for decades I had just assumed the British ran a far harsher basic training given every Royal Marine dons the title commando even if he is not in the SBS.

Youtube videos documenting U.S. Naval OCS and Royal Marines OCS suggest the U.S. Navy’s is more harshly run as well.

Intrigued by this I looked up on youtube life in British prisons. That slightly surprised me - but not a great deal - too. I don’t think one can make a credible argument that U.S. prisons provide more pampering and protection for its males (even personal identity protection, identity of ones masculinity, through protecting inmates from rape) than British prisons, or even prisons in Switzerland the fabled “perfect” statistical comparison to the U.S. as to why gun ownership decreases crime and violence.

1. youtube.com/watch?v=VhpXrSE0g6Q (First 5 minutes of USMC boot camp, arriving at MCRD)
2. Commando on the frontline [HQ] Ep1 (one will have to type that into the youtube search engine, because for brief seconds they show a nude Royal Marine in the shower scene, ergo inappropriate to link on here - apparently the British allow more nude shots on TV and documentaries than we do in the U.S.)

British - or English - culture promotes cheerfulness apparently too. I mentioned something to my mother about this and she responded by saying “cheerfulness in the face of adversity” is a very British thing. According to her (she’s not English or a Brit) the Brits call this “having a ‘stiff upper lip.’”

 

[Boccherini]

What is hard for a European to understand is how culturally divided the US is with respect to guns. People in places like New York City call for gun control because of massacres and then people in rural areas feel that they’re being called whackos by the ‘liberal elite’. Which is not completely hard to understand. And then there’s the Second Amendment.

What is funny is that the same people (e.g. many Republicans) who say they need guns to protect themselves against tyranny usually support things like the Patriot Act, that give the federal government more and more surveillance rights. Not all of them do – like Ron Paul supporters – but many do.

I don’t get the protection from tyranny argument that much myself. Let’s say some officials from the Federal Government show up and want to arrest your spouse for no particular reason. You have a lot of guns. At what point would you start shooting them?

 

[Zooey]

What is hard for a European to understand is how culturally divided the US is with respect to guns. People in places like New York City call for gun control because of massacres and then people in rural areas feel that they’re being called whackos by the ‘liberal elite’. Which is not completely hard to understand. And then there’s the Second Amendment.

What is funny is that the same people (e.g. many Republicans) who say they need guns to protect themselves against tyranny usually support things like the Patriot Act, that give the federal government more and more surveillance rights. Not all of them do – like Ron Paul supporters – but many do.

I don’t get the protection from tyranny argument that much myself. Let’s say some officials from the Federal Government show up and want to arrest your spouse for no particular reason. You have a lot of guns. At what point would you start shooting them?

My great-grandfather kept a loaded double barrel shotgun on the upper casing of the front door. There was a gate at the far end of the yard.
When a visitor approached, the 1st person to the door (who could reach up there) grabbed the shotgun down, & held it pointed at the approaching person/s. **If **s/he stopped at the gate & called out “Hello the house! Its [MyName]; can I speak with you a bit?”, the gun was lowered & the guest gestured in & offered a cup of coffee/tea.
If the person did NOT stop at the gate, the first barrel was shot over his[her] head as a warning shot…Then the gun was lowered to aim at ‘largest body mass’. Said visitor either turned around & went on somewhere else, or…2nd barrel fired. By then, the rest of the family had their weapons trained on the would-be trespasser/s.
My grandfather, when telling me this story, said, “Nobody was ever fool enough to keep on coming in, so none of the rest of us ever shot anybody”.That’s how it works.
It isn’t that you do start shooting (other than that single warning shot for the particularly stupid/deranged/criminally-minded). Its that the officials (or whomever) never pull this kind of nonsense, because they KNOW they wont get away with it. Tyrants know that they can bleed out just like the rest of the populace, so they stay at home & just tell the bureaucrats in D.C. that there were no signs of anyone living out there at all.

The reason there is so much violence isn;t because law-abiding citizens have guns.Its because too many people don’t have them.

 

[neophyte]

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

There’s no danger if people who aren’t criminals or crazy have guns, no matter what kind of guns they are. And since most people are not criminals or crazy there’s a net reduction in violent crime as rates of gun ownership and concealed carry go up. This is not conjecture, it’s a fact borne out by objective evidence.

Why would you need to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves? Why would you want to do so?

 

[PoorKnight]

We need to stop the whole “assault” weapon thing. There is no definition of “assault” weapon. When boiled down, what most people mean is a LOOK. It LOOKS scary so lets ban it!

I’ll boil down my point to this: is an “assault” weapon of a certain calibre or is it black with a carry handle? Is an “assault weapon” a gas operated or piston operated system or does it have picitany rails? Is an “assault” weapon double action or single action or does it have an observable magazine or is it tube fed? Does an “assault” weapon have a 10" barrel a 16" barrel an 18" barrel or does it have a flash suppressor?

Most of the time, when the media, politicians and most civi’s say “assault” weapon they mean a black, long, gun with pistol grip, carry handle, an exposed magazine, picitany rails and flash suppressor. However, I can easily get a gun that out performs, in rate of fire, penetration, accuracy etc that no one would consider an “assault” weapon. On the other hand I can show you a gun that many here would want to be banned, but it would only be an airsoft gun (i.e. air propelled plastic projectile with very little chance of skin penetration, let alone death, if struck).

Point being: “Assault” weapon does not have meaning. We need to be clear on our definitions or we’ll end up wasting time, energy and effort on something that doesn’t exist.

Additionally, if we define “assault” weapon, we need to study to see if such a ban would actually impact what we want it to. The last ban of mostly cosmetic features of certain guns in 1994-2004 (I think), showed no desernable impact to gun crime durring that time.

To the OP: Here in America, Pandora’s box is open: guns are here and available to law-abiding citizens. Bad guys do not follow the law. They will get guns whether or not they are allowed to have them. I’m a police officer and I’ve taken many weapons off of people who are not legally allowed to have them.

The studies I’ve seen show that when guns are already present in the public, banning guns results in the INCREASE of gun crime. Also there is now evidence, though I do not know of a study, that making “gun free zones” (i.e. citizens, and in some cases Law Enforcement, are not allowed to have guns there, but again bad guys don’t follow the rules) actually show an increase in gun crime.

So what is a law-abiding citizen to do? Other studies indicate that allowing good citizens, who wish to, to carry a gun concealed on their person, may actually decrease gun crime.

So here in America, there is the political battle between banning guns from law abiding citizens and allowing citizens to protect themselves.

Hope that helps.

God Bless

 

[Litcrit]

Now this is separate because it doesn’t just sound snarky, it is snarky: You Europeans just hate our American guns until Hitler or Stalin or the next lunatic with political clout takes over your country; then you come crying to us to please come over & shoot them for you. I, for one, feel like maybe, just maybe, it is time to say: “Tough. Suck it up, you all; we don’t want to inflict our guns on you…”. And let’s see how you like what the British did to us a couple hundred years back.

Well, this is not snarky, just honest: you’ve actually been here. Please, really don’t inflict your guns on us again.

I don’t like to disclose my location precisely because I don’t want to talk about it here, but I couldn’t help it this time.

I don’t get the protection from tyranny argument that much myself. Let’s say some officials from the Federal Government show up and want to arrest your spouse for no particular reason. You have a lot of guns. At what point would you start shooting them?

Good question.

My great-grandfather kept a loaded double barrel shotgun on the upper casing of the front door. There was a gate at the far end of the yard.
When a visitor approached, the 1st person to the door (who could reach up there) grabbed the shotgun down, & held it pointed at the approaching person/s… the officials (or whomever) never pull this kind of nonsense, because they KNOW they wont get away with it. Tyrants know that they can bleed out just like the rest of the populace, so they stay at home & just tell the bureaucrats in D.C. that there were no signs of anyone living out there at all.

So, if a gun-wielding man in a house is possibly battering women or raping children or cooking meth, the evil officials and bureaucrats should also know they’ll get shot if they approach and just leave the house alone? How do you know which gun-wielding citizens who won’t let, say, a police officer in are law-abiding, and which just haven’t been convicted yet, if everyone just threatens to shoot the cop that comes near?

This sounds like completely paranoid anarchy to me.

Why would you need to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves? Why would you want to do so?

Because the chances that a psychologically unstable individual or child might get to them or that the law-abiding citizen will snap if he hasn’t been thoroughly psychologically evaluated or that he will get drunk or just very angry are higher than the chances of an evil US government starting to kill people randomly, or of the law-abiding citizen being attacked by a small army.

 

[Sarcelle]

Because the chances that a psychologically unstable individual or child might get to them or that the law-abiding citizen will snap if he hasn’t been thoroughly psychologically evaluated or that he will get drunk or just very angry are higher than the chances of an evil US government starting to kill people randomly, or of the law-abiding citizen being attacked by a small army.

You can say the same thing about cars. A psychologically unstable individual or child or law-abiding citizen who snaps can do deadly things with cars too.

Laws banning guns will not take away guns from the streets. There are such things as black markets you know?

 

[Litcrit]

You can say the same thing about cars. A psychologically unstable individual or child or law-abiding citizen who snaps can do deadly things with cars too.

Laws banning guns will not take away guns from the streets. There are such things as black markets you know?

I’ve never heard of anyone killing over 20 children using a car on purpose.

And I hope for a near future in which every car will at least have gadgets that refuse to allow an intoxicated person to start it. If such gadgets can be devised to prevent minors and very upset people from driving, I’d be in favor of them too.

 

[mary_bobo]

We need to stop the whole “assault” weapon thing. There is no definition of “assault” weapon. When boiled down, what most people mean is a LOOK. It LOOKS scary so lets ban it!

I’ll boil down my point to this: is an “assault” weapon of a certain calibre or is it black with a carry handle? Is an “assault weapon” a gas operated or piston operated system or does it have picitany rails? Is an “assault” weapon double action or single action or does it have an observable magazine or is it tube fed? Does an “assault” weapon have a 10" barrel a 16" barrel an 18" barrel or does it have a flash suppressor?

Most of the time, when the media, politicians and most civi’s say “assault” weapon they mean a black, long, gun with pistol grip, carry handle, an exposed magazine, picitany rails and flash suppressor. However, I can easily get a gun that out performs, in rate of fire, penetration, accuracy etc that no one would consider an “assault” weapon. On the other hand I can show you a gun that many here would want to be banned, but it would only be an airsoft gun (i.e. air propelled plastic projectile with very little chance of skin penetration, let alone death, if struck).

Point being: “Assault” weapon does not have meaning. We need to be clear on our definitions or we’ll end up wasting time, energy and effort on something that doesn’t exist.

Additionally, if we define “assault” weapon, we need to study to see if such a ban would actually impact what we want it to. The last ban of mostly cosmetic features of certain guns in 1994-2004 (I think), showed no desernable impact to gun crime durring that time.

To the OP: Here in America, Pandora’s box is open: guns are here and available to law-abiding citizens. Bad guys do not follow the law. They will get guns whether or not they are allowed to have them. I’m a police officer and I’ve taken many weapons off of people who are not legally allowed to have them.

The studies I’ve seen show that when guns are already present in the public, banning guns results in the INCREASE of gun crime. Also there is now evidence, though I do not know of a study, that making “gun free zones” (i.e. citizens, and in some cases Law Enforcement, are not allowed to have guns there, but again bad guys don’t follow the rules) actually show an increase in gun crime.

So what is a law-abiding citizen to do? Other studies indicate that allowing good citizens, who wish to, to carry a gun concealed on their person, may actually decrease gun crime.

So here in America, there is the political battle between banning guns from law abiding citizens and allowing citizens to protect themselves.

Hope that helps.

God Bless

Well done. May you stay safe in your work.

 

[Litcrit]

To be clear, I’m not advocating banning all weapons for all people. Just: strict checks on people who want them, including psych evaluation and taking into consideration risk factors, and banning weapons that can kill multiple persons in a second or less.

That sounds reasonable to me and my question was simply why it seemed so problematic to US people here. I still don’t quite understand, but my desire to has dwindled somewhat.

 

[Litcrit]

Laws banning guns will not take away guns from the streets. There are such things as black markets you know?

Do you also think drugs should be legally sold, because they’re available in illegal venues? Are you fully in favor of legal abortion because women would just go to back-alley abortionists? If so, you’re consistent and I respect that.

 

[Arrependida]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

The first thing socialistic tending governments and totalitarian regimes do is control gun ownership.
Remember Nazi Germany: if Hitler had not prohibited the jews to own guns, maybe they could have defended themselves and not been killed by the millions…

It is always better that the government fears the people and not the other way around…

Besides that, remember we live in America here, not Europe. We have a lot of open wide spaces, a lot of dangerous wild life and some times people live in very remote areas.
I live on a farm.There are bears and a herd of around 50 wild pigs in the lowlands around my home. We don’t go into that forest without our AR-15…
And also, let’s say, there is a big crisis economical or political, things get chaotic, etc…We need to be able to protect ourselves from the gangs if they come this far to do us harm.
And please don’t think I am paranoid. I am from Brazil, and living on a farm used to be peaceful and safe down there till say, 10, 20 years ago when the socialists entered the government with Lula. They of course imposed a lot of gun control laws on the regular law abbiding citizen. Meanwhile the criminals, sure that they are now safe to act as they please, now come in gangs to your farm in a truck, beat you, rob you, rape the women, steal the cattle and all you have and then leave unharmed. Or you think that criminals will obbey some gun laws or something? They will always find a way, and actually make a lot of money with the weapon black market.

Thanks God it is not like that here in the US, yet…But now with Obama…I foresee the brazilianization of America coming very, very soon…

 

[tabycat]

Many governments around the world can and do. Democratic ones too, at that.

Are individuals here seriously suggesting that American people will and should start an armed rebellion against the US government at some point if they find it oppressive?

The US government still has nuclear weapons, military aircraft, tanks, that sort of thing. They’ll win anyway. Or should every individual be allowed to have these as well, to ensure the government doesn’t become oppressive?

The CSA did have an armed rebellion against the US goverment because they felt that the US goverment was oppressive.

 

[tabycat]

The framers of the US Constitution never envisioned what we saw in this nation over a week ago. We use to have drills for tornados’…now children have drills for lock down for bomb threats. Now this.

Way back when I was in school, we had drills for tornados and ‘duck and cover’ drills, just in case someone decided to nuke us.

 

[Cristiano]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

If you were to look at the history of Europe you would understand that Europeans have stashes of weapons since WW2. Talk to the older Europeans and you will see that after WW2 they stashed and hid wartime weapons, on top of that the governments made military weapons available to groups of civilians to prepare guerrilla fight against the Warsaw block. The big difference is that the weapons acquired by regular USA citizens are acquired in a legal manner, while the military weapons in the hands of European citizens have been distributed illegally by the governments through the secret services. A big scandal about the arming of civilians came out in the 90’s in regrad to facts hat happened in the 60’s and 70’s. Please see operation stay behind as an example of what I am talking.

 

[tabycat]

And of course in that ‘little dust up’ the horrendously oppressed (by which I presume you mean the Confederates - I doubt the Union troops thought they were being oppressed by the US government) had a mighty triumph and gave that tyrant Abe Lincoln whatfor to the extent that they are still free of the shackles of Washington DC today?

Uh … Except they didn’t and they aren’t

If we did it once (the Civil War) we may do it again (armed rebellion against Washionton DC).

 

[LightBound]

I’ve never heard of anyone killing over 20 children using a car on purpose.

And I hope for a near future in which every car will at least have gadgets that refuse to allow an intoxicated person to start it. If such gadgets can be devised to prevent minors and very upset people from driving, I’d be in favor of them too.

Tim McVeigh killed 168 people, including 19 small children, and seriously injured more than 680 others with a truck filled full of fertilizer he used as an explosive on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Terrorists the world over have killed thousands, including children, using cars or other vehicles they have planted with explosives made from household items.