Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

Afghanistan and Iraq, the militaries of the most powerful countries in the world can't keep control over a bunch of rebels with assault rifles. Or all the well armed countries now. Finland during the winter war, a very small population well trained in shooting and well armed. You can't make a specific point because it's impossible, the point is that well armed populaces like the United States and Switzerland have yet to become fascist.

My question is why do you want to take away people's freedom to own guns, apparently you are in the fact the one who doesn't trust your fellow citizens

 

I guess I cannot but whether anyone agrees with me or not I personally feel it is at least something that stands between liberty and tyranny and something is better than nothing.

so to my knowledge I cant say private weapons did stop a fascist coup (although I don't know it could have somewhere at some time) but as far as weapons used to protect yourself against others such as criminals, murderers, rapist and the like weapons have proved to be a useful tool for self preservation. Politically ideology aside wouldn't you feel safer knowing that if an aggressor wished to cause serious injury or death to you or a loved one that you would be able to immediately neutralize that threat? I do and I know maybe others dont but it makes me feel safer to not hafta rely on another when I need help immediately

 

in both afghanistan and iraqu, in priciple there is a partisan fight going on. now, as much as i would like to discuss those conflicts, they have nothing, but really absolutely nothing to do with this topic or your claim of guns preventing fascist takovers.

in both countries, those "rebels" have a military training and equipment (no matter how poor it looks to regular armys). especially in afghanistan the core of the "rebels" are veterans of the sowjiet war who got their training from.... the US.

and in iraq, the local groups consist of veterans of the iraq - iran war and 2 golf wars...

however, in both countrys there is no fascist movement.

yes, a small and well trained MILITARY.

well, there are many examples of not armed countries not becoming fascist too...

btw, did you even read what i wrote on facism? i am honestly getting the feeling you regard facism as something that comes like a brown wave conquering your country. you cant defeat facism with guns, only with education.

 

1775-1783 Close enough ?

 

Finland's military was shit in the lead up to the winter war, most if it was built up after the war started from conscripts and volunteers

 

found a nice page on firearms in the US (only statistics).

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

a quote:

so, statistically speaking, one firearm for every adult. now would you care to explain to me how, when guns help securing yourself and your loved ones, it is posible that the US have one of the highest crime rates of the western countries?

 

Do you read the other posts. The only high crime rate we have is murder which is mostly gang related. You have a better chance of being assaulted in Canada or Britain, your chance of being raped is twice that in Canada, your chances of burglary or having your car stolen is higher in most European countries.

 

you know your right the colonys had no military, it was a militia made mostly of farmers, I cant believe I missed that... I was thinking internationally

so yeh! there you go, private arms defeating the strongest military power on earth.

 

oops double post

 

I know the answer to that. Most of the "crimes" are not violent crimes, especially not gun crimes. The majority of prisoners are in for nonviolent and victimless crimes. And then there are the prisoners who are actually innocent, but being "wrong-place-wrong-time-with-wrong-people" and having no MONEY to bail out and there you are.

 

Sure. Then by that logic we should all have guns and weapons and the world will be a much safer place, right?

 

Well yes. If we could totally get rid of guns from everyone the world would be awesome, but we can't, so everyone should be equal

 

bullshit argument because it again is off-topic. your point was that private guns would stop fascist gouverments from rising. the american revolutionary war has noting, absolutely nothing to do with that... why?

1. GB never was a FASCIST country, like it or not.
2. yes, the military was a long time made up of militia. however, again, they were fighting an OUTSIDE enemy, not a fascist gouverment of their own.
3. naturally the US private men needed loads of weapons, how else were they supposed to commit genocide on the native amerikans and on the buffalos?
4. the US were supported by france and its allys - do you really think a few farmers could have won the war if it wasnt for the british being under attack of a whole european coalition of countrys? your patriotism in all regards, but pls stay realistical.

so we need a balance of power regarding weapons. so, what happens if someone has the insane idea of getting more and bigger guns than you? will you buy more and bigger guns too? have you ever seen a dog chasing his own tail? because thats you and your logic.

 

even if guns as in civilian, police, and military guns were eliminated from earth there still would be violence, also anyone with the know how can make a zip gun as seen here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZERhXURMMg

firearms are part of the human experience now so they will have to be dealt with one way or another, take guns away from people and people will get creative

 

I cant speak for the colonist but they obviously had a different POV

actually the crown was the government before the declaration of independence

point has nothing to do with gun control

it was the farmers who got the french support so yes the farmers managed to do it

my government does have bigger guns than me... and I am aware I cant match the force they bring but there are millions of people in my country who are armed so it would be a battle of endurance, kinda like the insurgence in iraq and Afghanistan. Isurgents fight with there hearts and that can be dangerous to an aggressor because they will never back down and submit to the will of another. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto understood that a well armed civilian force is something to be reckoned with. During WW2 he stated that invading mainland America would be a mistake because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass in the country.

 

i am getting the opinion that you dont really know what "fascist" actually means.

however, on a federal basis. on top of that, again, the british werent fascist....

less guns = less dead natives and buffalos; so actually it HAS something to do with weapons control.

but you know of the european colonial wars, do you? the american independence is a direkt result of european politics and feuds. did you never wonder why washington and the others had french "advisors" from the start?

i dont know what your gouverment tells you about iraq and afghanistan, but what they have there is a frigging massacre after another, one faction sloughtering the other for its own end, with the US troops cought in the middle.

again, you seem to think that the "gouverment", the "fascists" are something distant and unpersonal you can fight with guns. in truth, the fascist gouverment will have supporters anywhere - are you still so keen on fighting when your sister and your daddy are fascists? or if your best friend is fascist?

i really dont think you have any idea about fascism, somthing that becomes worse with every post.

thats a nice emerican fiew you have on this. well then, then pls look at china, a country invaded by the japanese. yes, invading the US would be a fucking nightmare because of the logistics and the fact that japan never ever could have mustered a big enough invasion force. this statement was adressed at yamamotos own superiors who seemd to be getting high at that time when making such proposals.
it would help if you saw this statement in the right context and not judge it purely on its word content.

 

Are you really making that point? Comparing what was socially acceptable in the 1800's, and what 2 groups of people that had been at war with each other from 1620's until that time to modern gun problems?

And no invading a well armed populace does in fact make for bloody guerrilla warfare, again Afghanistan and Iraq, and Somalia

 

well, you are missing the point - its not the populance as such that is well armed and fighting, but militias and single groups. in afghanistan for instance, the remnants of the taliban regime and local warlords and their soldiers are fighting, not the populance as such. in somalia the same - the militia wasnt composed of random ppl but of supporters of the local warlord (well, not counting the riots bevore, during and after the main event).

in iraqu it is the same - single groups do the fighting.

naturally, this doesnt mean the populance hasnt aquired weapons for self defence, but would you honestly suggest they are succesful?

the modern gun problem has its roots in those times (especially after 1776), when the constitution was fixed (which actually has a passage about weapons as you should know). america was europaniced by violence and guns, like it or not. this starts long bevore the US were founded and the US history itself is largely centered around weapons and wars.

the main problem with the US is that guns have such a long tradition and are so stuck up the ppls heads they cant even imagine living without them.

 

We don't control most parts of Afghanistan, we left Somalia, and Lebanon

For the record no one in Europe can call the US war centered, so many of our(and Canada's) men and women have died in wars you people started.

 

the US were created by a war, shortly after that they had a civil war. then there were various conlicts with neighbour states. during the 20th century, the US have fought in every single major conflict - WW1, WW2; after WW2, the US started some of the most blodiest wars and was involved in about every single war from 1950-1989. after the fall of the sovjetunion, the US have been involved in wars for control of natural ressources in the far east and africa. then came the wars "on terror" with major military presence in at least 2 countries up to now. i didnt even count the wars fought beside the nato or with UN - mandats. oh yes, and i also didnt mention the "war on drugs" involving several thousand US troops along with a multitude of coups on legal gouverments all over the world, especially in sout america. the US has military bases in every single strategic location on the world (especially near oil fields). on top of that, US carrier battle groups can be active on about every location of the earth within hours.

beside that, the military industry in the US is the most powerful and influencal lobby within the gouverment.

so, yes, all those "little" things can make us stupid europeans believe that the US are war centered.

on a sidenote on WW1: the US only engaged in the war when they saw their own interests (credits) threatened - as you can look up, the US didnt participate in the war from the beginning on.

and on WW2 - lets just say that high finance dealings in regard with germany are more than interesting. beside that, again, the US did only join the war after pearl harbour, years after the start of the war.

yes, thats because the US military doesnt fight for land but for interests.

however, i can not see what this has to do with gun control laws.