What if she didn't have a gun?

[Spiderman]

Are you operating under the false assumption that there are no guns in the UK?

BTW the UK has a much higher violent crime rate than we do and according to their procedure a death is not called a murder unless there is a conviction.

I always wonder - too - is that if you strip guns away from everyone (theoretically speaking of course), is the 'playing field' now equalized? I mean, what is to protect a single female living in a bad area (or just in general)?

Can a woman fight off a fully grown man with a knife? When a woman calls the cops what are the odds she will not have been raped - or worse - in the 10 minutes it takes for the authorities to arrive?

Is it easier for MEN to say (sure get rid of guns) because they know they will always have a one-up physically and can at least compete with any potential intruders?

Don't these women have neighbors? I certainly wouldn't sit back and let somebody be attacked. Other countries with strict gun laws have less violent crime.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online

according to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

There is more violent crime when people are not allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.

 

[elektra]

The American Revolution would have never been possible if the colonists weren't allowed to own guns. We'd have been crushed by the British. We would still be reporting to a king today.

I sure most people - gun controllers and gun holders - can agree with that fact, right?

Arms are Armaments, We have a right to bear Arms.

Armaments are Military Weapons. The Revolution was fought with Armaments and the Constitution protects this. Somehow the term has changed definitions.

 

[Brain357]

The American Revolution would have never been possible if the colonists weren't allowed to own guns. We'd have been crushed by the British. We would still be reporting to a king today.

I sure most people - gun controllers and gun holders - can agree with that fact, right?

Back then the military and citizens had similar arms. Now they are not slightly comparable.

But I made the point before; our government - yes - has much more powerful weapons than the average citizen. However, is it logical to assume they'd use nukes to put down an uprising? No. Is it logical to assume the air force is going to be 100% on board with dropping bombs on US cities like Chicago where they grew up? No.

The fact of the matter is that most of the combat would be rifle vs. rifle.

Are you aware how good our military is? It wouldn't be close. Would be rifles with tanks and grenades and rocket launchers... Against guys with rifles and very little training who would probably have a big friendly fire problem.

 

[Brain357]

I always wonder - too - is that if you strip guns away from everyone (theoretically speaking of course), is the 'playing field' now equalized? I mean, what is to protect a single female living in a bad area (or just in general)?

Can a woman fight off a fully grown man with a knife? When a woman calls the cops what are the odds she will not have been raped - or worse - in the 10 minutes it takes for the authorities to arrive?

Is it easier for MEN to say (sure get rid of guns) because they know they will always have a one-up physically and can at least compete with any potential intruders?

Don't these women have neighbors? I certainly wouldn't sit back and let somebody be attacked. Other countries with strict gun laws have less violent crime.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online

according to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

There is more violent crime when people are not allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.

How about Denmark?

 

[KevinWestern]

I don't see how that answers the question. We are discussing if we need guns to fend off tyranny and the government. If we do, why is it so many other countries do not?

But I'm saying what do you mean? There are revolutions going on EVERYWHERE - as we speak - that involve oppressive governments trying to subdue an armed population (ie take a look at Syria).

What do you mean by "so many other countries do not"?

Oppressive governments ACTIVELY exist everywhere, lol. I'm confused, dude. Even in first world countries like Germany we saw a government fly out of control in a matter of about a decade. There are examples everywhere.

Ok give an example of any country similar to the US that fell to tyranny. Syria is not similar. I'm aware of no modern country with long standing voting rights that has fallen to tyranny.

Define modern, Brain.

Slavery was abolished a little more than 150 years ago - not that long by any standards.

We're in uncharted territory, sir. For the first time in (probably history) the great majority of people couldn't do 95% of activities necessary for life without the help of others. I'm one of them! If the grocery store were to go away tomorrow, I'd be f$cked.

Point I'm making is that this "modern" society your discussing is very, very young and without too many precedents. When does your "modern" era begin?

 

[Spiderman]

Back then the military and citizens had similar arms. Now they are not slightly comparable.

But I made the point before; our government - yes - has much more powerful weapons than the average citizen. However, is it logical to assume they'd use nukes to put down an uprising? No. Is it logical to assume the air force is going to be 100% on board with dropping bombs on US cities like Chicago where they grew up? No.

The fact of the matter is that most of the combat would be rifle vs. rifle.

Are you aware how good our military is? It wouldn't be close. Would be rifles with tanks and grenades and rocket launchers... Against guys with rifles and very little training who would probably have a big friendly fire problem.

I don't give a rat's ass about the government and have no allusions of revolution.

I carry a weapon because I want the option of protecting myself. If you do not want that option and would rather wait until the cops show up (hopefully before you are beaten to a pulp) then that's your choice.

 

[Brain357]

But are you saying that we should model all of our laws based on what the Europeans do? I don't think that's the way we should handle things. Also note that you're never going to get rid of guns in America, they will always be there. There exists over 250,000,000 of them.

The only question is which scenario do you want:

1.) Government and criminals to have access to guns
2.) Government, criminals, and law abiding citizens to have access to guns

if you're going to use simple logic I'm going to choose option #2. Why wouldn't you?

I don't see how that answers the question. We are discussing if we need guns to fend off tyranny and the government. If we do, why is it so many other countries do not?

It doesn't matter if there are countries that don't need them. There are reasons for not needing them. Some are an island, some are protected by countries like the United States.

Then there are countries like the Ukraine that aren't able to defend themselves from aggressor nations. Take away their guns and they become easy pickings. Russia held off the Nazis by arming the population. Iraq was a mess for us because Saddam opened up his armory to the locals. The Soviets got out of Afghanistan because of the Mugahideen.

We are not going to be taken over by a foreign country.

 

[Spiderman]

Don't these women have neighbors? I certainly wouldn't sit back and let somebody be attacked. Other countries with strict gun laws have less violent crime.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online

according to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.

There is more violent crime when people are not allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.

How about Denmark?

How about it? Your premise was that countries with tough gun control have less violent crime. You are wrong.

 

[Brain357]

But I'm saying what do you mean? There are revolutions going on EVERYWHERE - as we speak - that involve oppressive governments trying to subdue an armed population (ie take a look at Syria).

What do you mean by "so many other countries do not"?

Oppressive governments ACTIVELY exist everywhere, lol. I'm confused, dude. Even in first world countries like Germany we saw a government fly out of control in a matter of about a decade. There are examples everywhere.

Ok give an example of any country similar to the US that fell to tyranny. Syria is not similar. I'm aware of no modern country with long standing voting rights that has fallen to tyranny.

Define modern, Brain.

Slavery was abolished a little more than 150 years ago - not that long by any standards.

We're in uncharted territory, sir. For the first time in (probably history) the great majority of people couldn't do 95% of activities necessary for life without the help of others. I'm one of them! If the grocery store were to go away tomorrow, I'd be f$cked.

Point I'm making is that this "modern" society your discussing is very, very young and without too many precedents. When does your "modern" era begin?

We'll see how far back you have to go to find one. The best others have done is Rome which is a bad example for many reasons.

 

[KevinWestern]

Back then the military and citizens had similar arms. Now they are not slightly comparable.

But I made the point before; our government - yes - has much more powerful weapons than the average citizen. However, is it logical to assume they'd use nukes to put down an uprising? No. Is it logical to assume the air force is going to be 100% on board with dropping bombs on US cities like Chicago where they grew up? No.

The fact of the matter is that most of the combat would be rifle vs. rifle.

Are you aware how good our military is? It wouldn't be close. Would be rifles with tanks and grenades and rocket launchers... Against guys with rifles and very little training who would probably have a big friendly fire problem.

Again Brain, you're basing your assumption off the notion the majority of our military would be fighting against the American people. I say that's not the case. When it comes to Ron Paul, liberty, anti-big gov't, etc the military is consistently the number 1 source of funding.

If it were 100% of the military vs. the US citizenry, then perhaps you'd have a point, but that's not the case!

I'd estimate a grand majority of our military men/women would not fire on US citizens and would defy all direct orders to do so. To think anything less would be an insult to our armed men/women.

.

 

[Brain357]

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online



There is more violent crime when people are not allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.

How about Denmark?

How about it? Your premise was that countries with tough gun control have less violent crime. You are wrong.

No it wasn't. My point is that you don't need guns for a low violent crime rate. Many countries beat ours with very few guns.

 

[Brain357]

But I made the point before; our government - yes - has much more powerful weapons than the average citizen. However, is it logical to assume they'd use nukes to put down an uprising? No. Is it logical to assume the air force is going to be 100% on board with dropping bombs on US cities like Chicago where they grew up? No.

The fact of the matter is that most of the combat would be rifle vs. rifle.

Are you aware how good our military is? It wouldn't be close. Would be rifles with tanks and grenades and rocket launchers... Against guys with rifles and very little training who would probably have a big friendly fire problem.

Again Brain, you're basing your assumption off the notion the majority of our military would be fighting against the American people. I say that's not the case. When it comes to Ron Paul, liberty, anti-big gov't, etc the military is consistently the number 1 source of funding.

If it were 100% of the military vs. the US citizenry, then perhaps you'd have a point, but that's not the case!

I'd estimate a grand majority of our military men/women would not fire on US citizens and would defy all direct orders to do so. To think anything less would be an insult to our armed men/women.

.

So based on your estimate we don't need guns because the military wouldn't fight us. Thank you.

 

[KevinWestern]

We'll see how far back you have to go to find one. The best others have done is Rome which is a bad example for many reasons.

Germany?
Russia?
China?
US Civil War?
English Civil War?
French Revolution?

And other countries (that you claim "don't count" but I completely disagree):
Yemen
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Tunisia
South Africa
North Korea
North Vietnam

I mean, are you saying that we will NEVER, under any circumstances whatsoever have to face an oppressive regime again because we're in some safe magical period that will extend onto eternity? Literally eternity? The US government will now and always be benevolent until 15,000 AD and beyond? There will be no changes? That makes no sense, dude. I don't mean to be rude but that sounds so incredibly naive to me..


.

 

[KevinWestern]

So based on your estimate we don't need guns because the military wouldn't fight us. Thank you.

Dude, please don't employ that bulls%it debate style and twist my words around. There will undoubtedly be military officers who will listen to their superiors. Point is that a MAJORITY of the military won't, and if that's the case Americans with guns (given the vastness of the US) have much more than a fighting chance.

 

[Brain357]

We'll see how far back you have to go to find one. The best others have done is Rome which is a bad example for many reasons.

Germany?
Russia?
China?
US Civil War?
English Civil War?
French Revolution?

And other countries (that you claim "don't count" but I completely disagree):
Yemen
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Tunisia
South Africa
North Korea
North Vietnam

I mean, are you saying that we will NEVER, under any circumstances whatsoever have to face an oppressive regime again because we're in some safe magical period that will extend onto eternity? That makes no sense, dude. I don't mean to be rude but that sounds so incredibly naive to me..


.

Well let's start with Germany and Russia. At what point were they long standing democracies that fell to tyranny?

 

[Brain357]

So based on your estimate we don't need guns because the military wouldn't fight us. Thank you.

Dude, please don't employ that bulls%it debate style and twist my words around. There will undoubtedly be military officers who will listen to their superiors. Point is that a MAJORITY of the military won't, and if that's the case Americans with guns (given the vastness of the US) have much more than a fighting chance.

Your trying to have it both ways. Either they will or won't fight us. You've been clear they won't, so we don't need guns. Your the one using questionable debating....

 

[KevinWestern]

Well let's start with Germany and Russia. At what point were they long standing democracies that fell to tyranny?

Are you asserting that once a country has a long standing democracy - lets say 200 years - it is immune (through all eternity) from falling into peril, or into the hands of an oppressive regime? Are you asserting that the United States will (without a doubt) always have a benevolent government, and in 3,000 years the power structure will have remained unshaken?

I really don't understand your premise, Brian.

Things in our world are changing very quickly. There are very few precedents to base our current situation off of because the world 1700 and prior (everything) looks MUCH different from the world 1700-Present.

 

[KevinWestern]

So based on your estimate we don't need guns because the military wouldn't fight us. Thank you.

Dude, please don't employ that bulls%it debate style and twist my words around. There will undoubtedly be military officers who will listen to their superiors. Point is that a MAJORITY of the military won't, and if that's the case Americans with guns (given the vastness of the US) have much more than a fighting chance.

Your trying to have it both ways. Either they will or won't fight us. You've been clear they won't, so we don't need guns. Your the one using questionable debating....

No, my point was you said that ENTIRE MILITARY vs. US CITIZENS = CITIZEN DEFEAT (which is true), but I asserted the situation would look more like A SMALL PORTION OF THE MILITARY vs US CITIZENS + A LARGE PORTION OF THE MILITARY = CITIZEN VICTORY.

Make sense?

You're playing games. Don't, please.

 

[Brain357]

Well let's start with Germany and Russia. At what point were they long standing democracies that fell to tyranny?

Are you asserting that once a country has a long standing democracy - lets say 200 years - it is immune (through all eternity) from falling into peril, or into the hands of an oppressive regime? Are you asserting that the United States will (without a doubt) always have a benevolent government, and in 3,000 years the power structure will have remained unshaken?

I really don't understand your premise, Brian.

Things in our world are changing very quickly. There are very few precedents to base our current situation off of because the world 1700 and prior (everything) looks MUCH different from the world 1700-Present.

I'm saying in modern times it won't matter if people have guns. With all our modern sources of news it's not going to happen. If it did you'd fight with your brain, not guns.

 

[Brain357]

Dude, please don't employ that bulls%it debate style and twist my words around. There will undoubtedly be military officers who will listen to their superiors. Point is that a MAJORITY of the military won't, and if that's the case Americans with guns (given the vastness of the US) have much more than a fighting chance.

Your trying to have it both ways. Either they will or won't fight us. You've been clear they won't, so we don't need guns. Your the one using questionable debating....

No, my point was you said that ENTIRE MILITARY vs. US CITIZENS = CITIZEN DEFEAT (which is true), but I asserted the situation would look more like A SMALL PORTION OF THE MILITARY vs US CITIZENS + A LARGE PORTION OF THE MILITARY = CITIZEN VICTORY.

Make sense?

You're playing games. Don't, please.

No you're playing games. If the majority of the military won't fight then certainly they can beat the minority that will.

Majority of military beats the small portion that will fight. No need for your armed citizens.