Who says guns have worked reliably and consistently?
Well for one, there was a case where an 11 year old girl's mere possession of a firearm prevented theft and saved her life.
Who says guns have worked reliably and consistently?
Well for one, there was a case where an 11 year old girl's mere possession of a firearm prevented theft and saved her life.
And consistently. Just because 2 burglars on the street got scared of a girl and her gun doesn't mean other burglars wouldn't blow her face in if they felt threatened.
Then I guess we had better disarm all the cops too, because what if the criminals feel threatened by them and kill them? Besides, most burglars probably wouldn't carry a gun on them anyways, it doesn't make sense because smart burglars would break in when they think no one is home, hence removing the need to bring guns (this is just my speculation, maybe I'm wrong). Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, no burglar wants to get charged for theft AND murder and would thus be reluctant to kill anyone. As opposed to a gun wielding person at home trying to protect his/her family and property.
Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. Despite its largely urbanized population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm, and both the public and the police prefer this to continue. Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation. Hunting with firearms was always a relatively elite activity and 'gun sports' relatively uncommon.
If you're talking about the US, you'd realize that America wouldn't have won without major involvement from the French. You also realize that Britain was trying to maintain the other parts of their empire, so their entire effort wasn't placed on America.
No. But I believe that chances of a totalitarian US is extremely slim during my lifetime, so I don't feel like I'd need to own a gun to protect myself against a corrupt government.
That's why we have a police force established. Then why would you need guns? The purpose of gun control is to make it a lot harder for potential criminals to get guns. Mainly people with ties to powerful underground groups would be able to obtain guns if they were banned, and with the planed blockade on the Mexican border, it's going to be a lot harder to get guns and ammunition illegally. Would the shootings at Virginia Tech and Columbine have been so blown out if the attackers had used knives instead of guns? They both obtained their guns through either a gun show or from a local shop.
And similarly, if a revolution broke out in the United States for whatever reason, the establishment would face similar problems that Britain faced. The United States is currently involved in about a hundred different wars around the world (and I doubt that will change), and foreign enemies of the US will most likely aid the revolutionaries if such a situation does happen.
Even if it the possibility seems slim, the threat of it is still there, and it's always good to be prepared. Most American colonists in 1760 probably did not expect to fight a revolution within two decades, which is why that we can never get complacent regarding things related to government. Remember that power corrupts people and that no government is immune to corruption.
A gun is still useful because it is "plan B" in case the police fails (remember that the police aren't omnipotent). Although criminals would have a harder time getting weapons in an absolute gun control situation, it still doesn't mean that they can't get guns at all. Think about it, narcotics are illegal in the United States, but millions still get their hands on them every year despite continuously escalating efforts to stop drug abuse. Similarly, if criminals really wanted guns, they would be able to get them (remember that Mexico isn't the only place where one can get illegal things and that at this point, securing the border is going to be really difficult), effectively leaving law-abiding citizens with no guns while leaving the criminals with guns. Blaming Columbine on guns is sort of like blaming obesity on spoons. In the end, it was two deranged teenagers devoid of morals that ultimately pulled the trigger, and not the guns walking around by themselves killing people. This really embodies my problem with gun control, in that the best way to deal with crime is to instill children with moral christian (gasp!) principles that teach the sanctity of life rather than make all these draconian weapon restriction laws.
The difference? Troops from Britain took weeks or even months to get across the Atlantic while it can take less than a day for modern troops to do the same thing. Mobilization is much, much easier than it was back then. The current US military has an assortment of weapons at their disposal, not just puny cannonballs and lame muskets. There are also the National Guard and Army Reserves (if there are any reserves left from fighting foreign wars). If properly carried out, the rebellion would be quelled quickly, especially if the media was hushed. The US can also threaten the other parts of the world with nukes should they try to help.
For what reason would the US become totalitarian? If in the unlikely chance it did become totalitarian, do you think the new totalitarian government would announce itself to the world? They would operate in secrecy until escape is impossible. A gun without armor piercing rounds would probably not help. You'd need to order a tank or a fighter plane to do much good against people with Kevlar armor and armored vehicles.
I did not state that guns, and not these killers, were at fault in these slayings. I stated that casualties would likely have been less severe had guns been controlled before the killers were able to obtain their hands on them using legal means. They probably would have had to resort to some less-efficient weapon.
Mexico is the main place where guns and narcotics come from, since land transport is way easier than overseas transport, which is one of the reasons that there is a planned border blockade. Drugs are easy to transport; guns, not so much so. The criminals likely to rob your house probably won't be able to pay for the smuggled guns, let alone find the gun dealers, since they'll rise in price due to higher risk and cost of shipping.
Why are you guys still arguing? In this case it was a good thing for the little girl to have a gun. Let's end it at that or you can take this to the Library.
Why are you guys still arguing? In this case it was a good thing for the little girl to have a gun. Let's end it at that or you can take this to the Library.
I never said that it would be easy to defeat the United States in a war, however, that does not mean that it is impossible or that we should just sit around and do nothing if the need for a revolution ever arises.
For one, America is already quickly becoming communist. Don't believe it? Then read this article: Are You a Practicing Communist? A government that does wrong does not need to announce it to everyone to get the word out. As far as I know, no totalitarian government has ever managed to keep it a secret for very long. A gun with no armor piercing rounds is still better than knives and archery (which is what Americans would be reduced to if absolute gun control became law).
The problem though, is that the killings will still continue, and the government would then move to ban knives and other weapons as well. What will follow will be a series of draconian laws regulating how sharp kitchen knives can be or laws banning any sharp hand held object. But even with that, the killing will still continue because the root of the problem hasn't been dealt with yet. They may even one day enact a law prohibiting you from having limbs (with the rationale being, "the police and government officials have limbs with which to protect us and do everything for us, so we have no reason to have limbs of our own"). That last point was pure speculation, but the point is, gun control is not going to reduce the amount of crime. If someone really wants to commit a crime, he/she will commit it.
Smuggling overseas, may not be as difficult as you think. During the Opium Wars in the 19th century, the amount of opium being smuggled into China was such a problem that China went to war with Britain over it. Besides, do you honestly think that the border is going to be secured tightly anytime soon? Do you realize that Arizona has been sued many times over its immigration laws and that there is a massive amount of resistance to securing the border?
The problem though, is that the killings will still continue, and the government would then move to ban knives and other weapons as well. What will follow will be a series of draconian laws regulating how sharp kitchen knives can be or laws banning any sharp hand held object. But even with that, the killing will still continue because the root of the problem hasn't been dealt with yet. They may even one day enact a law prohibiting you from having limbs (with the rationale being, "the police and government officials have limbs with which to protect us and do everything for us, so we have no reason to have limbs of our own"). That last point was pure speculation, but the point is, gun control is not going to reduce the amount of crime. If someone really wants to commit a crime, he/she will commit it.