[The E]

Nakura:

So you're basically saying that, because some people involved in a civil uprising 2 centuries ago in a country with vast stretches of wild land who didn't want a standing army thought that guaranteeing the right to keep firearms would be a good idea, it is now the absolute right of anyone living in a modern city to carry around fully automatic rifles?

The question of gun control is ultimately one about "how many guns does one person need?" Does the average american really need a gun (given that according to this, there are 94 guns for every hundred citizens)?

I submit to you that this plethora of firearms causes more problems than it solves. It certainly hasn't kept the government in check, except when it comes to the issue of gun control.

Lastly, let me comment on some of those quotes you used.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Define "essential liberty". Is the ability to kill someone else part of the essential liberties every citizen should expect to have?

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster

Funny, given that America has not struggled one little bit against the foreign (arguably inhuman and inhumane) invaders that have taken it over (AKA corporations).

[Darien]

Yep. We had one "mass" shooting since the assault weapon ban. Look at the rate of them drop off at the same time. Gun control worked in Australia, there's very little legitimate doubt about that.

Actually, Australian scholars and statisticians have deemed the Australian gun ban an utter failure, as mentioned in the original post. The ban didn't lower crime rates and you still experienced another mass shooting. Australia had widespread gun ownership, a strong gun culture and lenient gun laws up until 1987, yet they never experienced any mass shootings and had traditionally had low crime rates. It wasn't until the mid-1980s that you experienced any sort of "mass shootings," which were sparked from motorcycle gang wars. Seeing as you had virtually no strict gun control laws until 1987 and no mass shootings or violent crime until that time, it would be ridiculous to blame guns and law abiding gun owners for Port Arthur and the like.

(Bold mine)

No, they really haven't.

I should know better than to wade into another gun control argument, especially one framed as 'argue with me so I can drown you in citations', but it's a pet topic of mine so I can't help at least calling you on blatant misrepresentation of statistics. Gun control worked quite well in Australia - it resulted in a significant reduction in suicides (this is an issue which is often ignored in gun control debates) a marginal reduction in homicides, and we haven't had a mass shooting since.

Given we're talking about the US where you almost have one gun for every man, woman and child, it's almost a pointless comparison. Your country's idea of gun control is to tut-tut someone if they leave a loaded handgun where the kids can get it.

[Nakura]

Nakura:

So you're basically saying that, because some people involved in a civil uprising 2 centuries ago in a country with vast stretches of wild land who didn't want a standing army thought that guaranteeing the right to keep firearms would be a good idea, it is now the absolute right of anyone living in a modern city to carry around fully automatic rifles?

The question of gun control is ultimately one about "how many guns does one person need?" Does the average american really need a gun (given that according to this, there are 94 guns for every hundred citizens)?

I submit to you that this plethora of firearms causes more problems than it solves. It certainly hasn't kept the government in check, except when it comes to the issue of gun control.

Lastly, let me comment on some of those quotes you used.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Define "essential liberty". Is the ability to kill someone else part of the essential liberties every citizen should expect to have?

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster

Funny, given that America has not struggled one little bit against the foreign (arguably inhuman and inhumane) invaders that have taken it over (AKA corporations).

"They did this a long time ago, therefore it is bad." That is never a valid argument. Also, it seems you are unaware of firearms law in the United States, despite me posting a five page essay educating you about it in this very thread. Fully automatic rifles have been heavily regulated since the 1930s and were effectively banned in the 1980s. In addition, even prior to the 1987 Hughes Amendment, which banned machineguns, it was still illegal to carry them in public.

Why the hell does it matter how many guns someone owns? Owning more guns doesn't make you more prone to become a criminal. Who in the world has 'logic' like that? "I have five guns now, whereas I used to only have three, so now I'm going to go mug that kid down the street." Yes, every citizen should bear arms, it's their civic duty to defend freedom. Not to mention the fact that, as previously pointed out, firearms are used for self-defense up to ten times more than they are used to commit crimes, and how statistics show that higher gun ownership rates result in lower crime rates.

There is no "right to kill someone," kiddo. The fact that you even believe that owning a gun makes you a murderer is rather telling of your views. You do, however, have the right to self-defense.

Seeing as most corporations operating in the United States are American corporations, not British/French/etc. ones, I fail to see your point. Also, you fail to understand politics. Corporations in their own right aren't inherently wrong, but I'm sure you don't believe that. The only problem is that some corporations and yes, labour unions as well, have considerable influence over our government. Despite what you may believe, a number of Americans, myself included, are strong proponents of campaign finance reform.

[Phantom Hoover]

"They did this a long time ago, therefore it is bad." That is never a valid argument.

Neither is "they did this a long time ago, therefore it is good".

[Darien]

Why the hell does it matter how many guns someone owns? Owning more guns doesn't make you more prone to become a criminal. Who in the world has 'logic' like that? "I have five guns now, whereas I used to only have three, so now I'm going to go mug that kid down the street."

No, but it certainly makes you more likely to kill yourself.

Yes, every citizen should bear arms, it's their civic duty to defend freedom.

From who? What are you and your tacti-cool AR-15 going to do if China invades? Or are you worried Obama will come to put you in a FEMA camp somewhere?

Not to mention the fact that, as previously pointed out, firearms are used for self-defense up to ten times more than they are used to commit crimes

If you're talking about the Kleck figures, they've been pretty thoroughly discredited by now.

and how statistics show that higher gun ownership rates result in lower crime rates.

No, statistics may correlate between higher gun ownership rates and lower crime rates, but this doesn't actually mean anything. It's a bit like how ice cream sales correlate with murder rates.

Gun ownership tends to be high in rural areas where there is very low population density. Funnily enough, those same areas have low crime rates (because of the lower population density). This is a common-cause relationship, which you have mangled to fit your worldview.

[The E]

"They did this a long time ago, therefore it is bad." That is never a valid argument. Also, it seems you are unaware of firearms law in the United States, despite me posting a five page essay educating you about it in this very thread. Fully automatic rifles have been heavily regulated since the 1930s and were effectively banned in the 1980s. In addition, even prior to the 1987 Hughes Amendment, which banned machineguns, it was still illegal to carry them in public.

My real argument was more "They did this during a time that had vastly different social values, a vastly different societal structure, and a country to establish". I am unsure whether laws created to help during that time are still applicable today, or whether they need to be amended to reflect actual reality.

As for me being unfamiliar with US firearms law: Guilty as charged. I'm a commie european, I do not like guns, and I do absolutely abhor the idea of allowing everyone to have one.

Why the hell does it matter how many guns someone owns? Owning more guns doesn't make you more prone to become a criminal.

I must have missed the part where I made a connection to gun owners being criminals, or having a tendency to be. I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of gun owners are perfectly ordinary and decent citizens; still, that does not mean that they can actually be trusted with the power represented by a gun.
Guns are incredibly dangerous tools. Can you guarantee that every single one of those citizens who owns one has the ability and inclination to handle them responsibly? Accidents will always happen, that's a matter of fact. With guns, those accidents will have a higher-than-average rate of being deadly. Combine that with large numbers of people, and you get a ****ton of preventable accidents that didn't need to happen.

Who in the world has 'logic' like that? "I have five guns now, whereas I used to only have three, so now I'm going to go mug that kid down the street." Yes, every citizen should bear arms, it's their civic duty to defend freedom.

Right.

Yeah.

About that. What does "Freedom" mean? Cos I'm pretty sure that my definition differs from yours.

Not to mention the fact that, as previously pointed out, firearms are used for self-defense up to ten times more than they are used to commit crimes, and how statistics show that higher gun ownership rates result in lower crime rates.

Really? Do they show that? Globally? Because last time I checked the crime stats for my country, crime rates were going down across the board while gun ownership rates went down or stayed stable.

There is no "right to kill someone," kiddo. The fact that you even believe that owning a gun makes you a murderer is rather telling of your views. You do, however, have the right to self-defense.

So "right to kill in self defence" is not "killing"? Good to know, that.
Also note that I spoke about the ability to kill, which is distinct from the right to do so. Yes, I know, technically an unarmed human has all the tools he needs to kill others, but guns, as tools purpose-built to end lives, make this much easier.

Seeing as most corporations operating in the United States are American corporations, not British/French/etc. ones, I fail to see your point.

Look at the public behaviour of corporations. Any corporation you care to name will show up under a psychological profile as a high-functioning sociopath. Corporations, as a rule, do not care about human beings, or even other corporations. Their interests are not aligned with that of society at large. As such, they can certainly be classified as inhuman and inhumane entities, regardless of where they are incorporated.

Also, you fail to understand politics. Corporations in their own right aren't inherently wrong, but I'm sure you don't believe that. The only problem is that some corporations and yes, labour unions as well, have considerable influence over our government. Despite what you may believe, a number of Americans, myself included, are strong proponents of campaign finance reform.

Good to know. When are you going to use those guns of yours to make that change? Seriously, wasn't that the reason for allowing you to have them in the first place, to give the citizenship the ability to overthrow the government if it became too corrupt?

Oh, and just so you know? I think that Corporations as legal persons is one of the worst invention in the history of mankind.

[Luis Dias]

Corporations as people is one very interesting concept. Makes it abundantly clear what kind of a "human" these law makers really think "humans" are. And if we are to believe The_E's take on their psychological profiles (I for one agree), then we do live in an age where the human being is mostly defined as a psychopathic egotistic rational agent.

I'm rambling OT, sorry (then again, I have trouble accepting this gun conversation is worthy per se).

[Nakura]

No, but it certainly makes you more likely to kill yourself.

If you ban guns, people will just kill themselves by other means. Besides, I thought you supported the right to die? Also, despite what the media would have you believe, firearms-related accidents have been on the decline for years, while at the same time gun ownership rates have been rising.

From who? What are you and your tacti-cool AR-15 going to do if China invades? Or are you worried Obama will come to put you in a FEMA camp somewhere?

Nice strawman. For defense of themselves and of freedom, from enemies both foreign and domestic. Every citizen should also serve society in some manner (such as military service) before making decisions for society (voting or running for office). The only people who deserve freedom are those willing to defend and die for it.

If you're talking about the Kleck figures, they've been pretty thoroughly discredited by now.

I covered this in my original post, didn't you read it? It was a study from the Center for Disease Control: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

No, statistics may correlate between higher gun ownership rates and lower crime rates, but this doesn't actually mean anything. It's a bit like how ice cream sales correlate with murder rates.

Gun ownership tends to be high in rural areas where there is very low population density. Funnily enough, those same areas have low crime rates (because of the lower population density). This is a common-cause relationship, which you have mangled to fit your worldview.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it certainly can paint such a picture. I wasn't referring to urban vs rural areas, though that is a valid argument. Virtually everyone in small towns and rural is a gun owner, yet there is no virtually violent crime; whereas virtually nobody owns a gun in urban areas, yet there violent crime is commonplace. If you don't like rural communities, then take a look at urban areas, such as the District of Columbia and Chicago, where gun bans correlate with higher violent crime rates.

Also take a look at the United Kingdom, which has seen higher violent crime rates since it implemented strict restrictions on gun ownership in the 1960s. Violent crime rates rose even sharper in the United Kingdom after the gun bans in 1987 and 1997. In addition, countries that have higher gun ownership rates (Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.) have lower violent crime rates than those with very few gun owners (Belarus, Lithuania, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, etc.).

[Luis Dias]

The only people who deserve freedom are those willing to defend and die for it.

What kind of fascistic crap is this?

[Nakura]

My real argument was more "They did this during a time that had vastly different social values, a vastly different societal structure, and a country to establish". I am unsure whether laws created to help during that time are still applicable today, or whether they need to be amended to reflect actual reality.

As for me being unfamiliar with US firearms law: Guilty as charged. I'm a commie european, I do not like guns, and I do absolutely abhor the idea of allowing everyone to have one.

Fair enough. America is still a society that values it's freedom and guns, and we still believe in the classical liberal values that this nation was founded upon. Today around 50% of all families have a gun in their home and that rate is much higher depending on where you live. In addition, gun ownership rates have actually been on the rise over the past 20 years, plus more and more women (a previously underrepresented group) are starting to own guns.

I must have missed the part where I made a connection to gun owners being criminals, or having a tendency to be. I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of gun owners are perfectly ordinary and decent citizens; still, that does not mean that they can actually be trusted with the power represented by a gun.
Guns are incredibly dangerous tools. Can you guarantee that every single one of those citizens who owns one has the ability and inclination to handle them responsibly? Accidents will always happen, that's a matter of fact. With guns, those accidents will have a higher-than-average rate of being deadly. Combine that with large numbers of people, and you get a ****ton of preventable accidents that didn't need to happen.

You said that the problem is how many guns people have. Why does it matter if a law abiding citizen owns 1 gun or 20 guns? Owning "a lot" of guns doesn't make someone more prone to go on a murderous rampage. Thank you for pointing that out, this is what it really boils down to; gun control advocates think people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. High schools in the United States used to teach gun safety, but it was the gun control lobby that put an end to gun safety. Meanwhile, the NRA is the largest gun safety and training organization in the country.

About that. What does "Freedom" mean? Cos I'm pretty sure that my definition differs from yours.

This is the tragedy of Europe. Everything has changed on the surface, but nothing has changed deep down. They're still a society of serfdom and oligarchy, but the oligarchs of today have enough sense to hide their affluence.

Really? Do they show that? Globally? Because last time I checked the crime stats for my country, crime rates were going down across the board while gun ownership rates went down or stayed stable.

What country?

So "right to kill in self defence" is not "killing"? Good to know, that.
Also note that I spoke about the ability to kill, which is distinct from the right to do so. Yes, I know, technically an unarmed human has all the tools he needs to kill others, but guns, as tools purpose-built to end lives, make this much easier.

You can kill someone with anything. In fact, you're far more likely to be killed with a hammer (in the US) than you are any kind of rifle, including the "scary looking rifles" that the gun control lobby is trying to ban here. Firearms have a ton of uses other than killing people. And yes, you do have the right to kill someone in self-defense. I hope I never have to, but if necessary, I would kill someone to save the people I care about.

Look at the public behaviour of corporations. Any corporation you care to name will show up under a psychological profile as a high-functioning sociopath. Corporations, as a rule, do not care about human beings, or even other corporations. Their interests are not aligned with that of society at large. As such, they can certainly be classified as inhuman and inhumane entities, regardless of where they are incorporated.

The primary goal of a corporation is to generate money for it's shareholders, I'm not denying that.

Good to know. When are you going to use those guns of yours to make that change? Seriously, wasn't that the reason for allowing you to have them in the first place, to give the citizenship the ability to overthrow the government if it became too corrupt?

Oh, and just so you know? I think that Corporations as legal persons is one of the worst invention in the history of mankind.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that you don't understand American politics, that was unnecessary and rude. I suppose I got a little fired up back there, no pun intended.

I hope I never have to use firearms to bring about change; as a general rule, I believe firearms should only be used to bring about change as a last resort. As long as there are peaceful means to change the system, we should remain peaceful. The government has "become" corrupt, but we can still change it through democratic means.

To be honest, I don't have enough information on laws surrounding corporate personhood to form an opinion one way or the other. Perhaps once I have studied the subject more in depth, we can have a discussion on it?

[Nakura]

The only people who deserve freedom are those willing to defend and die for it.

What kind of fascistic crap is this?

I see you're using that word, I don't think it means what you think it mean.

I believe that the root of many of society's problems is that people always focus on their "rights" and "privileges," but never on their duties and responsibilities.

[Luis Dias]

It is fascistic and self-contradictory. You aren't the one who is going to define what freedom is and what criteria the society should have wrt who "deserves" it or not. Freedom either exists or doesn't, and if it does, then it matters little if people are or aren't "worth it" by some kind of blurting out on how they themselves will "risk their lives" to protect their own freedom and how others aren't worth their freedom because they haven't said some magical words or agreed to buckle up their own american armory on their belts.

Or perhaps the problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by freedom. Because it clearly isn't "freedom" as I understand it, it's more like a right of citizenship where you are being given certain freedoms and duties like showing off you have lotta guns in your armories so everyone knows how patriotic you are. Or something.

[Polpolion]

Every citizen should also serve society in some manner (such as military service) before making decisions for society (voting or running for office). The only people who deserve freedom are those willing to defend and die for it.

And when did you serve, might I ask? This is a terrible idea. The fact that people aren't willing to waste their time in military service (or if they're not capable) doesn't make their opinions any less valuable. The entire reason that our military deserves are respect and gratitude is because they've volunteered their time and their lives so that other people wouldn't have to. Mandating military service would devalue that, but much more importantly flood the military with people that have better things to do and aren't needed. If the US ever needs oodles of conscripts that are incompetent and don't want to be there they have selective service. Don't like the idea of people that wouldn't join the military are voting? Tough ****. The entire point of democracy is letting everyone have a say in what's going on, being willing to die for it is something else entirely. I don't know how else to put it, but I'm just utterly disgusted by that last sentence. If you're willing to defend and die for freedom, military despotism should be the last thing you would support.

What kind of fascistic crap is this?

I see you're using that word, I don't think it means what you think it mean.

I believe that the root of many of society's problems is that people always focus on their "rights" and "privileges," but never on their duties and responsibilities.

No, that's exactly it. Rights and liberties are never contingent on fulfilling duties or responsibilities because the government is not allowed to take them away. The only acceptable reason to take them away is because the exercising of those rights or liberties somehow infringes upon someone else's rights or liberties. Interpret this how you will, me not joining the military is not hurting anyone's rights.

[Luis Dias]

Someone just had an overdose of Starship Troopers or smth.

[MP-Ryan]

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it certainly can paint such a picture. I wasn't referring to urban vs rural areas, though that is a valid argument. Virtually everyone in small towns and rural is a gun owner, yet there is no virtually violent crime; whereas virtually nobody owns a gun in urban areas, yet there violent crime is commonplace. If you don't like rural communities, then take a look at urban areas, such as the District of Columbia and Chicago, where gun bans correlate with higher violent crime rates.

Also take a look at the United Kingdom, which has seen higher violent crime rates since it implemented strict restrictions on gun ownership in the 1960s. Violent crime rates rose even sharper in the United Kingdom after the gun bans in 1987 and 1997. In addition, countries that have higher gun ownership rates (Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.) have lower violent crime rates than those with very few gun owners (Belarus, Lithuania, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, etc.).

* MP-Ryan throws penalty flag and blows whistle

Hold it.  I already talked earlier about the statistical problems of these claims about high gun ownership = less crime on page one.

First off, you can't compare apples to oranges.  US firearms regulation is by state.  Every other place you just named does it by country.  You cannot compare the statistics of a state to an entire country.  The United States figures have no meaning when compared against any other nation when it comes to gun ownership and its relationship with crime.  Even comparing internally, crime rates have more to do with demographics that gun ownership.  I think I mentioned Idaho before - Idaho has high gun ownership, and a low violent crime rate.  Chicago has low [legal] gun ownership and a high violent crime rate.  Does that mean the high gun ownership makes for lower crime?  Absolutely not - this is a false correlation.  There are other variables at play that have more impact on crime rate which are ignored by these simplistic two-factor statistics (which is exactly why the gun lobby uses them).

Second, every country defines "violent crime" differently.  The violent crime rate in the UK is defined differently in the States, and addition measured offences have been added since the 1960s.  The blip on the graph is not representing the UK as a more violent place than the United States, or even more violent than it was pre-gun ban.  It represents a change in the statistical measurement of violent crime (also, crime rates overall have trended downward since the 1970s, but violent crime rates account for more of the total crimes in several countries because some crime is now measured as violent versus property offences when it used to be the opposite.  Canada has experienced this same shift, though not as pronounced as the UK).  Furthermore, this also ignores the effect of changing demographics again - the UK has undergone a major demographic shift since the 1960s.

---

The gun lobby regularly trots out these same talking points as if it somehow advances their argument.  Those of us who argue for stricter firearms regulations - myself included, despite being a licensed firearms owner/user - can see them for what they are in the first place, and know they're irrelevant anyway.  Gun regulation has very little impact on crime rate in some places, and very great impact in others.  Thee primary purpose of regulation is not to eliminate all crime; it's to make firearms ownership safer and more responsible.  Firearms regulation - in every place it has been implemented - results in the following:

1.  Reduces the number of accidental deaths in absolute terms, particularly of children, attributable to firearms.
2.  Reduces the number of suicides (in absolute terms; suicide rates drop).
3.  Is part of a larger societal shift that reduces the overall homicide rate (countries that have better firearms regulations tend to have lower homicide rates overall.  The US cannot generally be included because of piecemeal state regulation).

Also, the next 2nd Amendment crusader that trots out that Ben Franklin quotation will be summarily shot, then shot again just to emphasize the point.  It is virtually always used in the context of the gun debate, which is NOT the context in which old Ben used it in the first place.  Stop it!

[Nakura]

And when did you serve, might I ask? This is a terrible idea. The fact that people aren't willing to waste their time in military service (or if they're not capable) doesn't make their opinions any less valuable. The entire reason that our military deserves are respect and gratitude is because they've volunteered their time and their lives so that other people wouldn't have to. Mandating military service would devalue that, but much more importantly flood the military with people that have better things to do and aren't needed. If the US ever needs oodles of conscripts that are incompetent and don't want to be there they have selective service. Don't like the idea of people that wouldn't join the military are voting? Tough ****. The entire point of democracy is letting everyone have a say in what's going on, being willing to die for it is something else entirely. I don't know how else to put it, but I'm just utterly disgusted by that last sentence. If you're willing to defend and die for freedom, military despotism should be the last thing you would support.

I have not proposed mandatory military service, but rather, I have proposed that in order to vote, run for office or teach any form of civics, you must first serve the state. Those unable to perform military service could perform a civil alternative. Also, before you bash conscription (which is not what I am proposing), please note that a number of first-world countries require their citizens to serve in the military before voting, such as Austria, Finland, Israel, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan. The United States required that every citizen own a firearm and undergo routine military training prior to 1903. The system I propose, which is loosely based on Robert Heinlein's ideas, is a democratic one in nature.

No, that's exactly it. Rights and liberties are never contingent on fulfilling duties or responsibilities because the government is not allowed to take them away. The only acceptable reason to take them away is because the exercising of those rights or liberties somehow infringes upon someone else's rights or liberties. Interpret this how you will, me not joining the military is not hurting anyone's rights.

Our nation was founded the premises that in order to enjoy freedom, you had to fight for it. The Founding Fathers required that every citizen own a firearm and undergo regular training. I am proposing something much more moderate than that. Those who do not wish to serve society will not be forced to do so and they will not be discriminated against in any way; the only thing they won't be able to do is vote, run for office or teach civics.

As for your question, I am enlisting in the military in the near future.

[Phantom Hoover]

Firearms have a ton of uses other than killing people.

Yeah! Like... killing animals. Or target shooting. Yeah, I'm out of ideas.

[AdmiralRalwood]

No, but it certainly makes you more likely to kill yourself.

If you ban guns, people will just kill themselves by other means.

Sorry, pretty much all data suggests that making suicide even slightly more difficult makes people think twice and not go through with it. If a particular bridge is a popular suicide spot, and they put in a suicide rail or whatever they do these days, people don't just walk to another bridge; they change their minds, and keep on living. Making it harder for depressed people to get their hands on guns really does cut down on the suicide rate.

[Polpolion]

Those who do not wish to serve society will not be forced to do so and they will not be discriminated against in any way; the only thing they won't be able to do is vote, run for office or teach civics.

So yes, the country would be a military despotism.

[Phantom Hoover]

methinks someone took starship troopers a little too seriously