U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Ok, I may regret asking this, but it's something that, being an outsider (from the UK where guns have always been very strictly controlled) I don't understand.... why is this such a big deal?

@jakestratham - I think that answers my question. It protects you from tyranny of the state. Anything else?


^^ Why Hitler had no problem waging war on the UK as well our limp wristed friends in France and others.

Why no one will ever invade Switzerland and why Hitler didnt in WWII

"Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world."

"The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20...."
 


even if all the hype was true UN law is not US law, it's purely linkbait for people like you to spread around to the people who love their guns like women.
and no way barrack is gonna sign that into law
 
Why Hitler had no problem waging war on the UK as well our limp wristed friends in France and others.

Not that their situation was comparable to Switzerland, but France has a rich gun history and was responsible for some historical firearm inventions. It's said that the German military of 1940 was capable of beating what any other nation had at the time.

France currently has the fifth highest civilian gun ownership in the world. Also, only the USA and China now spend more on their military.

The French being wimps thing got exaggerated by neocons that were upset with France not entering the Iraq war.
 
Ok, I may regret asking this, but it's something that, being an outsider (from the UK where guns have always been very strictly controlled) I don't understand.... why is this such a big deal?

@jakestratham - I think that answers my question. It protects you from tyranny of the state. Anything else?
Tyranny of the state was the reason in the 1770s. Like GerardWon said, no one in America today thinks their small arms collection can help take back a country if emperor Palpatine comes to power.

Today there is one reason for gun proliferation in the US and one reason alone:

The Genie is out of the bottle.

Criminals here have them. If we don't then we're easy targets that WILL be robbed or killed or raped sooner or later. Statistics say twice per lifetime per person!

In the UK and many civilized countries in Europe, you don't seriously plan to put up with a carjacking at gunpoint when you go to work or leave a bar each time.

-We have to put up with that shit and have to think about it daily, planning for our family's safety from it on a literal daily basis... Owning our own guns is the ONLY way we can protect ourselves from it happening... Cops just can't get there in time.

So if we could wave a magic wand and somehow take away guns from all the bad folks here, I bet we could finally pass a law that limits guns on US soil.

Just after the first Unicorn is sworn into office, of course.
 
Really tough to organize a revolution with sticks and stones.

So when is the revolution happening? surely things haven't been worse than they are right now over there. How long do Americans have to be fucked over until they've had enough and decide to... start shooting up public libraries?

What's the difference anyway, you have guns. The military have jet fighters, helicopters, machine guns, training, armor, lasers, tear gas, microwave weapons, sound weapons, satellites and whatever else they're keeping under wraps. How do the people stand a chance with a few pistols? The ammunition will run out eventually after the supply is cut off.
 
^^ Why Hitler had no problem waging war on the UK as well our limp wristed friends in France and others.

Why no one will ever invade Switzerland and why Hitler didnt in WWII

"Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world."

"The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20...."

Over the course of the Eastern Front of WW2 Russia fielded an army of 34 million soldiers. The entire population of Switzerland in 1950 (most recent numbers I could find) was 3.4 million. So you're saying Hitler was scared of Switzerland's "militia" (they probably could have fielded a force of about a mill at best if their pols wouldn't have surrendered first anyway) but was willing to take on an army of 4.5 million regulars + 29 million conscripts while simultaneously fighting Britian on the Western Front?

How much is whatever the fuck you're smoking?
 
Over the course of the Eastern Front of WW2 Russia fielded an army of 34 million soldiers. The entire population of Switzerland in 1950 (most recent numbers I could find) was 3.4 million. So you're saying Hitler was scared of Switzerland's "militia" (they probably could have fielded a force of about a mill at best if their pols wouldn't have surrendered first anyway) but was willing to take on an army of 4.5 million regulars + 29 million conscripts while simultaneously fighting Britian on the Western Front?

How much is whatever the fuck you're smoking?

Actually you're both right. Part of it was the gun culture, and the other part of it was because...well...the nazi's were also banking with the Swiss. Not a great business move to give someone your money and then burn down their home.
 
Actually you're both right. Part of it was the gun culture,

The lack of incentive/need to invade is obvious. I'd like to see some kind of citation for the gun culture argument (not that the gun culture existed but that Hitler would have thought he couldn't blitz them like Poland and France into submission).
 
Since I really dont care *that* much about this argument, I performed my search via the googles. They didn't attack the swiss.
Swiss Gun Porn.
MOAR, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MOAR SWISS GUN SHIT.

"The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people.

Conversely, the Swiss citizen militia, with its extensive network of fortifications, had no offensive capability. The Swiss militia was not going to sweep into Berlin; modern Swiss-bashers who condemn the nation for not declaring war fail to understand that by keeping the Axis out of Switzerland, the Swiss were already doing everything they could for the Allied cause."

now go to bed. its late and i'm sleepy.
 
Interesting stat from this article...



Citizens with guns make less mistakes than the Police do.

Not to rain down on your parade but it is a numbers game -- a policeman has to make that judgement every single day - probably multiple times a day.

An individual - once every few years? SO probably if the "citizen with gun" had to make that judgement call a few times every day, that statistic will be very different.
 
Actually you're both right. Part of it was the gun culture, and the other part of it was because...well...the nazi's were also banking with the Swiss. Not a great business move to give someone your money and then burn down their home.

No, it's because the Swiss said, "ohhh, no worries about invading us. Just come on in, feel free to use our rail lines, banks, whatever you need! Just please don't hurt us."

If the Nazis wanted Switzerland, I'm pretty certain they could have had it. Maybe a little difficult due to the mountainous terrain and militia, but nonetheless, I'm pretty certain the Swiss would have been run over if Germany launched a full out invasion against Switzerland.
 
If you're a responsible, law-abiding citizen, I consider it your duty to carry a weapon and use appropriate force in the event of an incident.

Getting assaulted, or seeing someone being assaulted for no reason by a mob of black teenagers? Draw your weapon and stop it.

Think it won't happen? Don't kid yourself. As the economy gets worse and worse, and the summer gets hotter and hotter, this is going to go down as an impressively violent year.

Random attacks cause concern in Chicago - chicagotribune.com
 
Tyranny of the state was the reason in the 1770s. Like GerardWon said, no one in America today thinks their small arms collection can help take back a country if emperor Palpatine comes to power.

Today there is one reason for gun proliferation in the US and one reason alone:

The Genie is out of the bottle.

Criminals here have them. If we don't then we're easy targets that WILL be robbed or killed or raped sooner or later. Statistics say twice per lifetime per person!

In the UK and many civilized countries in Europe, you don't seriously plan to put up with a carjacking at gunpoint when you go to work or leave a bar each time.

-We have to put up with that shit and have to think about it daily, planning for our family's safety from it on a literal daily basis... Owning our own guns is the ONLY way we can protect ourselves from it happening... Cops just can't get there in time.

So if we could wave a magic wand and somehow take away guns from all the bad folks here, I bet we could finally pass a law that limits guns on US soil.

Just after the first Unicorn is sworn into office, of course.

I don't worry about carjackings where I live , our violent crime rate is lower than any country in Europe.
 
Another good read from The Mustachio'd One:

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- less crime.

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.


Guns Save Lives - HUMAN EVENTS


political-pictures-john-stossel-geraldos-mustache.jpg
 
I don't worry about carjackings where I live , our violent crime rate is lower than any country in Europe.

By Our I assume you do not mean the U.S but somewhere more local, because I doubt that is true for the U.S =p

Anyway, I to some extent see the point of having guns, and if i lived in a country where they were pretty easy to come by, then I Would probably get one. That being said, I am still against having guns easily available. First of all, Humans overall are pretty untrustworthy, even the smart ones are very likely to make mistakes or act irrationally in stressful situations. Add to that how many full on fucking turbostupid people there are in America (or any country) and in my opinion it is pretty clear that even though I consider myself responsible enough to have a gun, the majority of people are not, and increaseing the guns available to the general population including me is going to increase my risk more so than decrease it.

To what scottspfd82 says for example, someone appearantly broke into his home, and he got the gun and they (luckily) ran away before anything happened, Lets say that was just his neighbor who came home wasted went to the wrong house, thinking he was home and his key didn't fit so he figured it would be a good idea to enter through the window. Add a gun to this mix and you are suddenly 1 very small mistake from killing an innocent drunk neighbor, not to mention what people themselves could get into their heads doing with a gun while drunk.

And the statistic that you get yourself into 2 life threating situations on average, whether that is true or not, I am pretty sure the vast majority of those situations get a shit load more life threatening for everyone involved (including you) if you were to have a gun with you. The 1 exception where a gun actually helps you is if someone is only out to harm and/or kill you or your family, if someone just robs you or jacks your car you are a lot better off just letting them have whatever they want than pulling out a gun, as this is greatly increasing the risk of losing your own life, not just the robbers life.

As for the "oh if we dont have guns then the only ones left are the criminals and they will run amock in the streets and kill everyone." First of all, the law enforcement (at least high tier law enforcement like Swat and what have you) will be equipped with guns, it is not your job to go vigilante and stop criminals regardless of if you have a gun or not. Secondly, if you make a lot harder to get, that means they are a lot harder to get for criminals also, and you wont be in a situation where everyone and his mom who is criminal has a gun, and you basically get guns thrown into your lap as soon as you turn 13 and join a gang or what have you.

In norway guns are pretty much illegal apart from hunting rifles and people asociated with the military or law enforcement in some way. And from my experience, the majority of killings are either done with a legally owned weapon because some military affiliated person went crazy and killed his family or something, or is done between gangs where they both have illegal weapons.