Whenever I hear about how the rest of the world doesn't need guns I always think of the Mexican avacado farmers who used (highly illegal) guns to protect their farms from cartels because the government can't protect them.

Always funny when a European corrects an American that the rest of the world is not America, as it is obviously Paris.

Kinda surprised Parisians weren't busy arming themselves to the teeth after the Bataclan.

Useless unless you also have the right to bear them into potential death traps like a theater.

Very needed when like in Bataclan the authorities take a secure the parameter and wait approach, like for Columbine and the Pulse a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida massacres. Or when the closest authorities cower in fear as in the Stoneman high school shooting (that was addressed by police units from further away).

Many ignore that the authorities always have guns. The only question is whether the civilians are able to have them too!

> A world where a regular person in their everyday life do not need firearms exists all over the world. Are you the police? are you the military? and if so are you currently working? If not then you do not need a gun.

Someone upthread made a good point: a regular person in their everyday life does not need a fire extinguisher. Most people go their whole lives without ever using one.

Several months ago I listened to a story about Myanmar on (I think) NPR's The World. After the coup and after the military started shooting protesters, many urban pro-democracy activists sensibly realized that nonviolent action wasn't going to work, and headed out of the city to get trained by some ethic rebel groups in the countryside.

However, when they were done with their training they had to do back home unarmed. Myanmar has strict gun control, and the rebels didn't have any guns to spare.

So, in summary: you don't need a gun until you do.

Edit: I think this is the story: https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-06-02/souring-peace-marches...

I agree with the OP, but I am not in America. Sadly, my nation definitely wouldn’t be considered a developed country (we are in the 60s or 70s by GDP).

So maybe instead of the OPs thoughts only applying the one country, maybe your thoughts only apply to one continent: Europe?

Now with respect to the article, my sisters are very interested in gun ownership because in their own words “no one needs guns just to protect against robberies”. And I agree, for peace of mind when it comes to bodily safety it’s better to trust yourself instead of being forced to trust crime statistics and police response times.

To correct one fallacy, brandishing a gun is largely unnecessary. If you brandish, you might as well use. However, knowing that you are armed can give you the courage and confidence that puts off attackers. For the most part these guys are opportunistic, and only escalate when they are sure someone is defenseless.

I've seen enough videos of the unarmed British police getting their ass handed to them by crazy Somali's with nothign but a knife to realize that yes, the police need guns.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

In London, unarmed police stood and watched as a man was beheaded in broad daylight in front of a crowd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

Funny because your link directly contradicts the version of events you put forward. Not only was he killed before the police arrived but the two attackers were shot by armed police very shortly after the regular police arrived and prevented any other mayhem. AND a whole bunch of unarmed regular people intervened as well.

> Not only was he killed before the police arrived

I don't know if that can be proven. He never had a medical assessment that established that at the time, and everyone involved would have had incentive to say he was already dead to avoid initiating a confrontation with the armed attackers.

Okay he was attacked and left for dead by the attackers (although the bystanders who helped said he was dead at that point after the fact) who didn't further attack him before the police arrived or after they arrived. It doesn't make your version any less completely counter-factual because no police were there when Lee was attacked and they did in fact later successfully intervene to stop them doing anything further.