Why do Americans like guns so much?

They can actually thank the Red Army for that. If the Soviets hadn't come in against the Axis powers then it is entirely likely that Europe would have fallen to Hitler and the US would have had to treaty. Good work in SE Asia and the Pacific though, with your allies you all did very well.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, I'm afraid, please see my previous comment.

 

You missed his point. If it came down to that, the U.S. Military would be insubordinate if they followed orders. They are sworn to protect and uphold the U.S Constitution. Not the other way around. For example, if Obama ordered the military to confiscate house to house all weapons, (which he cant) but for the sake of argument lets say he did, the military would be on the side of the people not his. Thats the whole point of the second.

 

Well no, not really. It was all about the militias. True that the US Sup Ct has interpreted the Second Amendment to reflect contemporary needs (one in the eye for those who bang on about the Constitution not being a living document eh?) but originally it really was about the militias in the tiny colonies that had just removed themselves from the British teat.

- - - Updated - - -

How many turning points were there in the European theatre? Have a think about it.

 

Yes, but knifes equals force. Something most people don't have the strength for. When it comes to knifes, might makes right. I don't think a bigger, stronger assailant is going to be afraid of a smaller person wielding a knife.

 

Me too - and what the Yanks seem to be missing is that when everyone is armed then escalation can and does occur.

Instead of one unarmed person breaking in you have two armed robbers so you get a bigger gun and they start with heavily armed group home invasions

Soon in the US you will see gangs end up like small militias walking down the street demanding everyone bring all goods outside or they will shoot up the buildings and kill everyone inside

 

Guile may be a necessity for a weaker opponent; or better knife throwing skills.

 

How about criminals with guns are the problem?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you arguing causation?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you arguing causation.....?

 

A well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as a solution.

 

Which is why most places, including America, have laws limiting the length of knife one can carry

But defence is not about engendering fear in one's opponent - defence is about not getting hurt in the first place

 

It's not about everyone being armed. It's about keeping the arms in the hands of those to defend themselves and have the upper hand against those who wish to do harm.

That's a pretty nice scenario you've got there...

 

Do you know how Hitler came to power?

It might also be interesting to discuss your other examples.

 

How are those laws working out?

When you have an assailant and he or she is trying to harm you, then you play by his or her rules. But you trying to thwart off the assailant without trying to hurt the person, you're just going to end up getting yourself hurt in the process. It's like if a person is trying to hurt you with a weapon and your doing your best not to try to hurt the person. That's never going to work.

 

Respond to the woman in Atlanta GA who protected herself and her two young children with her firearm. As the intruder was coming after them, how do you think she would have faired against him had she not had her firearm? Seems like your arguments fall apart on this one factual case.

 

Here is a reason for a right to keep and bear Arms; and, it has nothing to do with the claims of gun lovers.

 

The right to bear arms is not fundamental to individual liberty. Individual liberty exists with or without the presence of guns. The right to bear arms is simply what it says it is, a right and that right is declared in the United States. In other nations it's regarded as a privilege granted by society to certain people for very good reasons. But those living in those nations are not deprived of liberty simply because they can't lay claim to a declared right to own guns.

Gun violence is an outcome of culture and frankly culture develops and no one individual or collective can be blamed for the development of a culture. However where an aspect of culture is counter-productive then it should be examined and, if necessary, measures taken to change it. Refusing to do so is a conscious choice. But certainly culture is at the heart of this, you only have to look at that TMZ video clip of the shooting in LA (the most recent one - wait, I mean not the most recent, the one that shows a man shooting a handgun outside a nightclub).

- - - Updated - - -

Not so, not so at all.

 

I'm a bit confused here. Are you familiar with what the US did to those women who wanted the vote?

Universal suffrage was achieved in many countries before the US and the UK finally got around to it.

And I wouldn't mention electoral systems if I were you, the US is in a hell of a hole there, even today.

As for the parliament at Westminster being more like the US? How is that? Do you have an unelected upper chamber? I'm confused.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a bit confused here. Are you familiar with what the US did to those women who wanted the vote?

Universal suffrage was achieved in many countries before the US and the UK finally got around to it.

And I wouldn't mention electoral systems if I were you, the US is in a hell of a hole there, even today.

As for the parliament at Westminster being more like the US? How is that? Do you have an unelected upper chamber? I'm confused.

 

Where do I start with this?

What's this 1948 stuff?

 

Would the intruder had had a gun if there were not so many available in America?

Plenty of stories here, and there about people defending themselves successfully without a gun - in fact a gun is only used approximates 2-8 times out of a thousand incidents

 

And in Mexico in 1810.

Persia in 6 BC is probably the winner though eh?

- - - Updated - - -

How about the colonies' neighbours?

 

Maybe it's better put in a thread dealing with comparative gun control laws?

 

See no one will touch this point, because people want to make dumb arguments about Hitler, and muskets.

Just a big game of misdirection to these people!

 

The intruder probably wouldn't have had the gun, but that wouldn't have stopped him from intruding.

When you interview most home invaders in US prisons, they'll tell you that they weren't afraid about people being home during their robberies. They were afraid of whether or not they had a gun.

 

so what you are saying is that you would rather be stabbed to death or beaten with a lead pipe than shot...interesting

BTW before straining a arm patting yourself on the back for being a Brit , this might be of interest to you

 

The intruder had a crowbar and was going after the mother and her children while they were hiding in the attic of their home. Ill ask again, how would she have faired had she not been a legally armed citizen?

 

It may have depended on how good she may be with a baseball bat, knives, or even, martial arts.