Summations Only

I used to think that, but the wars and occupations I've seen in my lifetime - as well as the nations that have actually won their freedom by armed insurrection in the last couple of decades, or for that matter the last couple of months - have proved otherwise. It's not easy for an armed populace to overthrow its own government against a modern mechanized army, but it's entirely possible and has happened several times in recent years. It's entirely possible for an armed populace to defend itself against a superior invader; look at Iraq and how the might of the US army was held nearly completely at bay by people with dynamite and AK-47's.If you think the Second Amendment is no defense against a tyrannical government you're just not watching the news.

Correct positions aren't invalidated by the fact that many who hold them also hold other idiotic ideas. Wrong ideas are not made right by the fact that those who hold them may be on the side of the angels in other areas.

But a government that won't use the hydrogen bomb is indistinguishable from one that doesn't have one.

The populance is not trained at defending themselves with deadly weapons. That's what the police is for. In fact, that's what the academy is for. They don't just arm people who want to be cops, they train them on how to do that. On the other hand, any fool can own a gun and use it. No ese bueno... No one has said that. This is the strawman you are wildly taking swings at. As usual. I'm just waiting for the "I'm being misrepresented" and the "You're a liar" accusations to start coming. Didn't say that. Just said a figure. Could be your wife or girlfriend...or boyfriend? Notice everyone, now I "think" criminals have the right to expect a safe environment while they rob you. You read that well guys, that's what I THINK now. Oye vey, what a cunt.Anywho...There are other means to defend yourself other than guns. My friend has two trained pitbulls in his home, and no guns. Go in his house expecting "physical safety".- Oni

Well since its not the correct position, everything else you said IS invalidated.- Oni

ScientificBob notes: Exactly. Even if it already has, in it's gradual way. They got ICBMs, nukes up the wazoo, chemical weapons, biological weapons - you name it - and "you" (not any of us here, but a generic "you" for those who think they can still revolt against this government with the protection of the 2nd Amendment) want to start some kind of Branch-Davidian-Riva-Ridge-Michigan-Militia style standoff with your AK-47s and army surplus tank fleet? Good luck with that.

Says who? The vast majority of firearms owners train and practice with their firearms, recognizing that untrained use of a weapon is as much a danger to themselves as to other. I've had that training and I don't even own a gun.But rather than recognize that as responsible gun ownership, I suspect you view that practice as militaristic, further evidence that they're a "neighbor with an arsenal", some kind of "gun nut." It's a nice trick for having it both ways: when people don't get the training to use guns, that proves that guns are dangerous. When people do, that proves they're just the kind of soldier wanna-be's who are the most dangerous. Then I'd better make sure who they are and why they're there. And if I think it's my wife but it's actually a murderer, having the gun is going to make that mistake a lot less risky for me. I'll be sure to bring a pair of ketamine steaks.

Yea well that was a high tech vs no tech guerrilla war. U cant fight people if you dont know where they are. But in reality all the grate american supper power had problems with was cleaning up the mess after the war you know the guys in caves who still wanted to fight the actual war was won very rapidly.But can you imagine an american resistance force somewhere in the woods with no McDonald's, no i phones no toilet paper, no computers, no internet .... The resistance would be running out of hiding begging to be arrested by the government and getting them out of that hell-hole.You cant have any tech on you because 99% of it can be traced, and there are chips that can be traced in just about everything.You cant be holed up somewhere with a clear view to the sky, you dont have to look up for a satellite to figure out its you it can identify you by the way you walk.and tones of other ways to find you that are no longer secret but available to your government at a moments notice. I really dont want to think about the ways that are still secret.The only way the American people could rise up with arms against their government would be the terrorist way, no tech hiding and hitting critical targets from time to time. And i just cant picture you Americans wanting to fight that way.

Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Incidents in 1987 and 1996 in which men holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use. The result has been the enacting of laws which are among the strictest in the world.[8] The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, passed by the Thatcher government in the wake of the Hungerford massacre, made most semi-automatic weapons illegal;

---

Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood[14] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland,[9] this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.

---

Sure. But fighting a state to surrender isn't at all the same thing as pacifying a people. Our country was born that way.

But, yet, disarming did not make those nations safer:

quote:

---

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world...

​

From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

---

http://www.wmsa.net/pubs/reason/reason_nov02_crime_in_uk.htmThat's from 2002. The UK's gun ban had an almost immediate effect on gun homicides, it's true:But that effect was to increase the number of UK's citizens killed by firearms. On the other hand, in the US where the assault weapons ban has expired:The notion that the US is experiencing some kind of incredible murder rate just isn't true.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

PREFACE: I am new here, and 1st apologize if I don’t have all the technical aspects of this site down yet, I have lurked for about a week before I created an account to post. I am not sure if I should reply to individuals or one large post to many other posters, I will figure it out.

quote:

---

Do you think it is going to make a hill of beans difference what the 2nd Amendment states if individual citizens are defending themselves against the National Guard or the US Military. At that point federal and even state legislation is a moot point. Not that I think this will ever happen.
  —DevilsAdvocate

---

Sounds like British propaganda from the late 18th century. Do you lowly colonials think you can fight the almighty British Empire with your hunting muskets and rifles, and merchant ships? We (the British) have the best Army and Navy in the world.

quote:

---

Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.
  —DevilsAdvocate

---

I highly doubt the 18th century Patriots could forsee mass media in any other form that the Printed newspaper and books. Does this somehow mean that 1st Amendment should only apply to public speaking and newpapers?

quote:

---

Like it or not, the vast majority of the civilised world looks at US attitudes towards guns and shakes it's head in disgust, whilst facepalming about how massacre after massacre just get ignored, forgotten.
  —Briterican

---

Like we care what they think.
Did we care when they all had monarchies and laughed about this whole by the people for the people idea?
We’ll see who they come running and begging to when they need military help.

quote:

---

This seems logical to me. If anyone has another explanation, I'ld be glad to hear it.
  —Scientificbob

---

I think this would be a whole other thread into itself. But you basically want to compare a very large and populated, diverse land with a relatively small and homogenous land, and devise some sort of logical comparison between the two. 300 million people of 50+ cultures somehow compares with 6million Flemish and 3million Walloons, in a land the size of South Carolina?

quote:

---

Who do you think you're going up against with a couple of handguns and a Winchester 30-30, an army of Hare Krishna's?
  —Onifre

---

See Vietnam, or even more recent See Afghanistan, or even more recent look at what is happening in Syria TODAY. Then come back and explain how civilians with small arms cannot make a difference.

quote:

---

In every country there are lunatics willing to kill a massive amount of people. But, in most countries they don't have guns to carry it out.
  —onifre

---

Interesting, especially since the strictest gun control in North America is in a nation called Mexico. In Mexico it is illegal for most of the people to own firearms. Look how safe and free of mass murder Mexico is.

The fact that most aren't police officers or former military (and only current former military.) I said "untrained in a high pressured situation." Knowing how to hold a gun and how to properly put it in safety, which is what is learned at most gun safety classes, is NOT what I said.Also, it's not required that one takes a gun safety course to even buy a gun, so you're hoping most people do that bare minimum. Easy now, I have no doubt that someone, say, like Catholic Sci has the up most care when handling a gun (for the most part) and is a responsible gun owner.Not what I'm talking about though. But I do recognize and value proper gun ownership. I should think so. The point is civilians are not trained at, nor should they be allowed to, know when a situation warrents deadly force or not. Could be your wife, could be a "murderer," who really knows. Then play a piano and sing about what pitbulls dream of when they take a pitbull nap?- Oni

Are you kidding? Most americans will take the accusation of "pro-violence" as a compliment. There are tens of millions of americans who are anxiously and joyfully waiting to vote for a president who gives a weekly go-ahead to assassinate nearly random people (including fellow americans). Don't even get me started on america's "pro-torture" stance.

Gun control and ownership laws in the UK - BBC News

quote:

---

FIREARM STATISTICS 2008-09 - UK

• In 2008-09 firearms were involved in 0.3% or 1 in every 330 crimes recorded by police in England and Wales
• Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive annual fall
• Excluding air weapons, firearm offences decreased by 17% to 8,208
  Handguns were used in 4,275 offences during 2008-09, a rise of 2% on 2007-08
• There was a large fall in the use of imitation weapons, which fell by 41% to 1,511
• Overall, firearm offences involving any type of injury were down by 41% in 2008-09, from 4,164 in 2007-08 to 2,458
• There were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in 2008-09, the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years.

---

These things take time.Edited by Briterican, : These things take time.