>>3685147
The problem is that anyone who will be dangerous with a gun in his hands most likely ALREADY has a gun. Psychopaths and criminals are not constrained by the laws the country imposes on them.

It's not the right to carry firearms that has a lot of value, to be honest, at least - from my viewpoint.
The more important essential right that people require is the right to shoot in self-defense anyone who infringes upon your property without a proper search warrant, AND a law requirement for any household to hold at least one gun.

And, regarding the value of firearm ownership, look at Switzerland, which has one of the lowest crime rate.
Everyone, and I mean - EVERYONE, after reaching the legal age, must go through obligatory firearm training, after which the government issues a firearm to the citizen, which he is now obliged to keep in proper condition (i.e., ready to use at any time), and he must go through this course again after a certain period of time passed. It is thanks to that that Switzerland is capable of mobilizing a three million army, capable of its country's defence.

>>3685173

> The problem is that anyone who will be dangerous with a gun in his hands most likely ALREADY has a gun.

That's determined exclusively by availability of firearms on the black market, and proper regulation (and lack of an official market) will make sure that this isn't a problem, as showcased by Oriental countries with virtually non-existent firearm crime records.

> the right to shoot in self-defense anyone who infringes upon your property without a proper search warrant, AND a law requirement for any household to hold at least one gun

So you'd like the whole country to be trigger-happy? Sure, that works out really well with the US — except it doesn't, and simply appearing to have a firearm is likely to get you gunned down by the police, especially if you are black.

> And, regarding the value of firearm ownership, look at Switzerland, which has one of the lowest crime rate.

The Swiss don't actually use guns for self-defence, which is the important point — they own guns simply because they (or, to be specific, those in the army) are required to by law, and don't actually make use of them outside of holding them at home; I find it funny how the Swiss are made to be an example of 'proper' gun ownership when it's definitely not the case and when most guns owned by the Swiss are actually long arms.

> Everyone, and I mean - EVERYONE, after reaching the legal age, must go through obligatory firearm training, after which the government issues a firearm to the citizen, which he is now obliged to keep in proper condition

Now, I actually agree with position, but I have enough grey matter in my skull to not consider this mattering towards issues of self-defence — from 'casual' crimes, at least. I believe that all citizens are beholden to the right to lawful rebellion against an illegitimate — going against the interests of the citizenry — government, but that emphatically has nothing to do with unhealthy firearms fetishism of the Right.

>>3685271
You seem to misunderstand.
In reality of Slavic countries:
a) the market regulation is virtually non-existent;
b) the level of goverment trust is at all time low, and rightfully so, because the cops are more likely to kill you than actually help you.
Guns are NOT intended for actual usage or self-defense. Merely owning a gun ALREADY makes the criminal reconsider his actions back at the stage of planning the crime, because he knows that he can get a stray bullet in his head.
It's the same with nuclear weapons. Everyone owns them not to use them, but to scare other countries from fucking with them.

>>3685414
Oh, I believe I understand the issue better than you do.

1. You are right in that there is no regulation, and I could argue with you on the matter of design/implementation failure problem, but instead I will just say that in the CIS, small time criminals and criminal gangs generally do not find themselves in possession of small arms capable of inflicting lethal force — but they ubiquitously own traumatic guns, and the reason for that is lack of a small arms market. In fact, the issue of common criminals (as opposed to criminal organisations, a subject that goes well beyond the boundaries of this argument) possessing small arms is mostly confined to Americas and third world countries elsewhere — countries allowing for notably easy access to said arms —, and so it in fact reinforces the argument against indiscriminate distribution of would-be implements of casual crime.
2. Now that's just plain bullshit. If that were the case, it would have had long ago become common knowledge, and yet research indicates nothing of the sort; there are many factors to crime commitment, and not all of them are well understood, but this particular one is easy to study, and query on it has produced no reliable results to implicate a strong causal link between crime rates and availability of firearms to the citizenry. However, there is one effect that is undeniable: easy small arms access makes both the criminals and the police trigger-happy, as demonstrated in the US both by the police and self-appointed law defenders (#blacklivesmatter started with a member of a neighbourhood watch — Hispanic and with significant African ancestry, by the way — getting drunk on power and believing himself to be both invincible and in the right to decide on the matters of others' life and death) and criminals (murders happen with ridiculous frequency there, and it heavily correlates with arms usage).

Now, as I already said, I do stand for the citizenry to be able to defend itself, but I mean for defence to be against political and economical oppression and not the kind of crime preventable by sane socio-economic policies. Still then, I do not believe that in the CIS, for example, the people are ready for this, but then that is part of citizen consciousness problem that touches issues far and deep and only barely concerns this argument.
An addendum: did you really suggest that you should be able to murder any bloke for a trinket? Are you a psychopath? Now, this is a legitimate question. I genuinely fail to see how one can judge that murder is better than robbery based on anything other than a spine-chilling lack of empathy. Tell me it was just poorly worded and you didn't stroke your peen when you were writing that.

The point is that CIS laws are irrational in half. So nothing strange here.

>>3685702
Legalization of guns makes less crimes only in countries that already "not wild". In "third world" countries this only makes more crimes per year. Power means responsibility. "Wild" people have none.

>>3685704
I'm talking not laws, but actual tendencies and motivations.
>>3685706
Again, that is not a proven fact. Whether "wild" or "civilised", it makes for little difference.

>>3685702
Let me tell you something - I will not trust others to protect me and my loved ones.

Let's suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that I agree with you, and handguns should be banned.
Who will control and enforce it?
People without guns? Then it takes just one person with a gun to create a massacre which no one can defend from.
People with guns? Then you are creating a rift between people who are entitled to carry a gun - namely, police, military, government officials etc. - and people who aren't. Police are still people. Do you genuinely believe that no one, no one would abuse their position? You are artificially creating a society where people with power can oppress those without it.
Maybe we should just un-invent guns in general? Sure, let me un-invent the nuclear weapons and ICBMs too, while we're at it. That is not the path I want to take. Hell, we still don't have access to Tesla archives, and human genetic experimentation is banned because of the train of thought similar to yours. Setting the issue of restricting the knowledge after it is already out of the bottle aside, I do not wish to restrict access to knowledge in favor of security.

Hell, what stops a person from attacking you with a knife? Or home-made explosives? They're not hard or expensive to make, yknow.
You are focusing on a single issue of firearms, while forgetting to take into account the whole picture.

I see that you honest in your views, but you are naive. You are trying to create miniscule gain of security at the major price of freedom.

So, no matter how many times you try to twist my words so that they will neatly fit to your image of validity of your argument and viewpoint and call me names - I reiterate - I will not trust others to protect me and my loved ones.
Feel free to try to change my opinion, I guess.

「Identifying Comrades.

"Yep. This is shmuklers."」

Huh, stupid non-natives share their mistakes here.

>>3686146

>I will not trust others to protect me and my loved ones

Гы. Ты не позволишь кому-то себя защищать, но при этом позволяешь оказывать коммунальные услуги, доставлять почту и фильтровать воду. И ещё небось транспортом пользуешься.

>>3686172
Isn't it silly to blame learners? Are you concerned about your iichan size?

>>3686180
You're talking about different risk scales, my friend.
If I rely on someone to deliver my mail, the worst that would happen is I won't get my mail delivered.
If I rely on someone to protect me, the worst that could happen is my death and death of my loved ones.
Please, think before you start talking.
>>3686172
Actually, I've noticed that the majority of native English speakers are even worse at using it than non-native ones.
Source: five years of experience on 4chan. I probably shouldn't put it on CV, kek.

>>3686146
Oh, bollocks. Lord knows I tried to be polite, but this is one stupid motherfucker right here.
Now, let me make this perfectly clear: I do not consider any of your attempts at providing arguments seriously. I know that the only reason for your gun fetishism is that you were bullied at school, didn't have friends, weren't hugged enough by your parents, what the hell ever, and you are trying to compensate for your feelings of powerlessness by fantasising about possessing a power over life and death; you're too pussy to take your life into your hands and too fucked up to consider healthier outlets for your issues. Whatever you may say rings hollow to my ears and I don't bother thinking of a critically-minded response, since we both know that facts and ethics don't matter to you one way or another; hell, in turning my head off I didn't even notice how you led me astray as you turned the argument on the rails of typical back and forth on the old issue of firearms control. I must make it a point that I respond to you in the first place exclusively out of sporting interest since I understand perfectly well that you will not change your opinion, since it depends on factors entirely outside of my control.
Now, as we got that out of the way, let me proceed with addressing your points.

> I will not trust others to protect me

And yet you do that with most everything else. You don't grow your food, you don't manage the various stations powering up your house appliances, allowing you to make mobile phone calls, etc., you don't diagnose and treat your own illnesses, you don't perform bank operations with your credit card (another issue of safety, by the way), you likely don't drive the transport carrying you and you almost certainly don't keep maintenance on it by yourself, and there are many other vital issues you feel confident about entrusting to others. Why make an exception for firearms? There is no rational reason and we both know it.

> handguns should be banned

Wrong, you dolt. You accuse me of misunderstanding you, and yet you put words in my mouth while pretending to be insulted. The arrogance.
The point that I started this thread with is that non-lethal small arms are already available for ownership and use in the CIS, and whining about absolutely having to have a "real" pistol is ridiculous and a direct admission of desiring to own said pistol for purposes not concerning self-defence, while also telling of general callous disregard for human life. I repeat, non-lethal small arms are more than sufficient for the purpose of fending off any "casual" criminal, and so arguing on this point from the perspective of general arms-enhanced safety is plainly dishonest.

> Police are still people

I suggest you stop visiting doctors and bankers — who can tell what's on their human minds?

> power abuse

Wow, a few sentences ago you were just inventing shit I didn't say, but this makes for fine mastery of lingual acrobatics.
As I already stated, my thoughts on oppression run far deeper than the confines of this argument, and so I will neither address them here nor allow you to do it yourself. Just drop it, it's a red herring that I will not chase.

> Tesla archives

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, this wanker is a Tesla worshipper. Let me guess, you consider laissez-faire to be the gateway to Kingdom of God, think that Rothbard is reasonable, and believe in the Singularity? Tesla was a fucking hack as a scientist and his ideas on free energy were rubbish, and worshipping him is a sure-tell sign of an ignorant fool who knows nothing and wants everything. No, mate, you are too bloody stupid to argue with me on the matters of knowledge.
>>3686268
Don't flatter yourself, your English isn't stellar, either.

А зачем он разговаривает сам с собой?

>>3686362
По-моему, это какое-то рпг, но я не понимаю этот язык.

Now I'am still waiting for the story as revenge from nyashnaya cirnochka.

Other cirnochka

>>3686351

>non-lethal small arms are already available

Have you even tried these? I tested a lot of them on myself for shits and giggles. The only thing that actually stopped me is a set of 2 (TWO) overclocked police stun batons AFTER beating me long enough to actually apply them.

>>3686351

>Tesla was a fucking hack as a scientist

Except for the part that whole AC electricity is Tesla's child, you ignorant fuck.

>>3686409
And how did beat you? Are you a flagellant or stuff? Tell me more!

>>3686416
No, I'm not a flagellant (Well, at least I think so and, like many people, I do HATE hitting my night tables with my pinkie toes), but I do like wagers. Some impulsive people hate to be on lose streak.
Still, I won the last one and returned the favor in full.

>>3686411
Bitch, please. There is nothing about what Tesla did with AC that would suggest any kind of talent, much less genius, in him. Tesla's understanding of the actual science behind his work was patchy, and in any case, there is absolutely nothing in those "files" that could possibly be of any worth, and believing otherwise shows one for an idiot who knows nothing of the scientific method.

>>3686409
M8, they kill people with those. I don't give a fuck if you're a superman, you can't argue with evidence.

> bragging about being tough on the internet

Get laid.

>>3686268

>You're talking about different risk scales

Да ну. Знаешь, что будет если к тебе в воду попадет холера? Это если ты доверяешь коммунальщикам. А после этого тебе приходится доверять врачам. И что теперь, заниматься самолечением? Кстати, если тебя будут забирать каретой скорой помощи, она будет ехать по дороге. По дороге, Чарльз! Знаешь сколько людей умирает на дороге? Больше, чем от огнестрельного оружия. Намного больше. Но ведь ты доверяешь кому-то строить эти дороги, чинить их, регулировать движение и ездить рядом с тобой.
Ты какой-то неумный.

Shmalyat people from a wolyna is priceless.