U.S.A.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Taking guns away from "untrained" civilians puts us ALL at risk. From criminals, nature and the government. I could defend myself other ways but chances are if I pull a double barrel that maggot will raise his hands and do as I say, no death required on either side.

Having something semiautomatic or automatic makes sure I win if he continues his criminal tendencies. Also, the government and police have full auto. We must always be on par with our overlords, speaking from a strategic standpoint.

[Kilkenne]

I'm here to tell you, as someone who has handled one of these weapons, that it would be a lot easier to dispatch tots at close range with a handgun than a long rifle. Handgun's also a lot easier to reload, and you can carry more of them. I know that modern school has taught everyone to not think such evil thoughts blah blah blah, but think about it. He reduced his own ability to kill. It takes a lot more effort to bring a rifle to bear.

You can't compare US massacres with China, a disarmed state that never had an opportunity to arm period. They weren't hardly introduced to the IDEA of personal firearms (don't give me that black powder came from China stuff) until the 19th century. When the UK went in there during the Opium Wars they still were using sabres and spears and ancient cannon in some cases when they couldn't obtain European arms. And do you think that anyone else let the peasantry have them? Are you stupid?

Comparing violence country to country has always been awful on both sides. People who cite the amount of guns being safer in Switzerland are also wrong. You can't compare places that are completely different culturally, which most countries are. Anyone could cherry pick and say well, all firearms are illegal (more or less outside of small birdshot rifles) in Mexico, and look what happens there. (Counterpoint will be WELL THEY GET THE GUNS FROM MURIKA, except all the AKs)

Basically what I'm trying to say is that this argument is stupid, and it's a lot dumber from the side of someone that is scared of an inanimate object because they don't want to make an effort to understand why anyone would think anything different than them. Remember that the people on the nogunz side of this debate were the ones who handed firearms over to Mexican gangs to cause atrocities to attempt to drum up support for non-proliferation.

[Firetooth]

Or he goes for the handgun he himself has? And in your situation, any gun would do the trick. No semi-auto/auto required.

I am also refusing to acknowledge defence against your government as a valid argument for owning guns. What's your strategy when they bring in tanks and drones, Ungatt? Most democratic countries don't arm their citizens to ensure the government doesn't massacre them or w/e.

I'm here to tell you, as someone who has handled one of these weapons, that it would be a lot easier to dispatch tots at close range with a handgun than a long rifle. Handgun's also a lot easier to reload, and you can carry more of them. I know that modern school has taught everyone to not think such evil thoughts blah blah blah, but think about it. He reduced his own ability to kill. It takes a lot more effort to bring a rifle to bear.

You can't compare US massacres with China, a disarmed state that never had an opportunity to arm period. They weren't hardly introduced to the IDEA of personal firearms (don't give me that black powder came from China stuff) until the 19th century. When the UK went in there during the Opium Wars they still were using sabres and spears and ancient cannon in some cases when they couldn't obtain European arms. And do you think that anyone else let the peasantry have them? Are you stupid?

Comparing violence country to country has always been awful on both sides. People who cite the amount of guns being safer in Switzerland are also wrong. You can't compare places that are completely different culturally, which most countries are. Anyone could cherry pick and say well, all firearms are illegal (more or less outside of small birdshot rifles) in Mexico, and look what happens there. (Counterpoint will be WELL THEY GET THE GUNS FROM MURIKA, except all the AKs)

Basically what I'm trying to say is that this argument is stupid, and it's a lot dumber from the side of someone that is scared of an inanimate object because they don't want to make an effort to understand why anyone would think anything different than them. Remember that the people on the nogunz side of this debate were the ones who handed firearms over to Mexican gangs to cause atrocities to attempt to drum up support for non-proliferation.

Well argued. I agree it is difficult to compare nations, and why dreading somebody bringing up Switzerland. Still, there is some use in comparison of nations. For example, the US and UK are similar in many regards, yet the gun laws here are an obvious difference, as are the levels of gun crime.

China is a poor example, but fine in the context of school massacres only. I'm not comparing the nations as a whole, simply showing that being deprived of guns reduces the body count in massacres. Something I thought obvious.

I also realize handguns are the greatest problem, but I'm not stepping into that ground when I'm arguing with Unga. Baby steps, hence why I start with arguing against automatic rifles. Also, I think most people can agree there is little use for an auto besides conspiracies against the govt., whereas many see a handgun as something needed for personal protection.

I'm still not convinced the whole guns vs no guns argument isn't decided by culture, tbh. You're born here in the UK (or were you? I can't remember which part of Ireland), yet you have been raised in 'murica and are now far more supportive of guns than most UKers.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Lol so basically "you make valid arguments so I shall disregard them". A government cannot survive without its population. An unarmed population would be easy to subjugate without too many deaths, an armed one would not. Even IF they have tanks. Most of the troops would likely abondon or turn on such a government anyhow, as apposed to fighting their brethren.

They thought the colonies fighting GB was laughable too. "Do these uneducated farmers really expect to take on the crown, with the finest fighting force in the world? Ha! They have the best training, weapons, tactics... This'll end soon."

[Kilkenne]

To be honest, automatic rifles are rarely if ever fired in automatic mode, especially if you actually want to hit what you're aiming at when causing these massacres or whatnot. You'd probably have it on selective fire, the more I think about it. I honestly think the problem is that "automatic rifles" look scarier, but when you think about how they're used it's really no different.

It's the baby steps thing that worries most Americans. I don't think that everyone thinks in the same terms as Ungatt necessarily, especially people who don't own automatics but support the right for others to choose differently. Americans in general have very little trust in our own government, less day by day. Whether it's Bush starting wars on dubious evidence or the Obama administration doing whatever it is the media is yammering about today, it's been baby steps that have gotten our phones illegally wiretapped, our citizens (and others) killed by drones without trial, and we practically get molested any time we step into an airport.

The guns thing is almost certainly decided by one's environs. The political reality for Americans is that we have a dysfunctional, disingenuous federal government that is not truly representative. The gun thing is a backlash against that. Whereas in the UK/Italy/etc the government is actually representative of the people, and while you may not agree with what they're doing, at least there's not people ruling by decree at the top because that is highly illegal. Except Judges. Judges are basically the same here and in the UK, with the whole ruling by precedent thing. Napoleonic court systems are so much better.

[Firetooth]

So, if the army does not turn, what hope have you? I'm genuinely curious. I'm going to have to quote here:

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable, procures success to the weak, and esteem to all

    - George Washington, 1st U.S. President

And as for the American revolution, over a hundred years have passed since then.  ::) War war completely different then to in ancient Rome, and war is much different today to back then. Also, the circumstances of the revolution are completely different to that of the American govt vs American civvies today.

The guns thing is almost certainly decided by one's environs. The political reality for Americans is that we have a dysfunctional, disingenuous federal government that is not truly representative. The gun thing is a backlash against that. Whereas in the UK/Italy/etc the government is actually representative of the people, and while you may not agree with what they're doing, at least there's not people ruling by decree at the top because that is highly illegal. Except Judges. Judges are basically the same here and in the UK, with the whole ruling by precedent thing. Napoleonic court systems are so much better.

As I imagine. I must sleep, though I would appreciate it if somebody could tell me what makes the US govt so bad. I am genuinely curious, and not in the passive-aggressive way. :P

[Sharptooh]

They thought the colonies fighting GB was laughable too. "Do these uneducated farmers really expect to take on the crown, with the finest fighting force in the world? Ha! They have the best training, weapons, tactics... This'll end soon."

Don't really want to get involved here, but just to point out, back then an army literally consisted only of men and crude ships, nowadays an army consists of not just men, but battleships, tanks, drones, war planes, and an assorted array of weapons (bombs, chemicals etc.) which civilians just don't have access to.

Finest fighting force in the world was probably a bit of an exaggeration too, the British army really didn't keep up with Guirella tactics, much to their detriment.

In short, that isn't really a good comparison.

[Firetooth]

Vaguely related fun fact, not on the American revolution but civil war: Abe Lincoln invited Garibadass here to go fight, but he was too busy trying to sort out Venice and Rome to go. Seems a shame, then he could add 'murica to his CV of guerilla badassery.

[Kilkenne]

Here's the difference as I understand it between the US and UK governments as succinctly as I can put it. Firstly, the US federal government is a representative republic, meaning that you vote on specific candidates who then toddle off to the capital to do the day to day running of the government for the most part. If you get more votes than the other person in your district/voting area, you get to go. The other X% of folks who didn't vote for you, while they are still in the constituency, are not generally represented. This is also how the President is chosen, obviously. These respectively form the Legislative and Executive head branches, of which the legislature is broken into two houses, the Senate, which is 2 people from each state, designed so all states have equal power in it. The other house is the House of Representatives, which is representative by population. More population in your state, the more representatives you get. Bills have to pass through both houses and then get signed by the President in the Executive branch to become a law. That is if they don't get shot down in the Judicial Branch, which are appointees from the Executive Branch and are supposed to determine whether a law is indeed lawful or not. These are political appointees, so it generally doesn't work that way.

Anyhow, so say you live in FREEDOM LOVIN' TEXAS, where people vote in the range of 70% for the Republican Party. Unless you live in very certain areas, voting as a liberal is an exercise in futility. It is unlikely that you will be represented in government, despite exercising your "civic duty". The opposite scenario is true in states like California which go 65%ish the other direction. Unless you live in certain areas, again. So that's how you determine Senate seats.

House representatives, however, are divided into "districts". Every 10ish years each state, whichever party is in power in that state, gets to redraw their district lines however they like (within reason) in most states. So if you're a conservative in power, what you would do is make massive conservative leaning districts, and then grab as many liberal subdistricts as you can without putting your own representation in jeopardy. Again, this works both ways. And these maps can be drawn ANY WAY YOU WANT, this is called "Gerrymandering" if you want to google it. It makes our maps illogical and ridiculous. These districts are the reason that you can have potentially 55% to 45% of one party affiliation by population, but the House of Representatives could be 40% and 60% if we redistricted well (poorly) enough.

So, now we've covered the Legislative Branch, but have only touched upon the Executive. The Executive Branch is elected by the people, but they don't actually elect the President. What they elect are Electors. These Electors are based on the population of each state. If one candidate wins more votes, they get all the electors from their state. This means that votes in states like my home Wisconsin, a mid-population "Swing State" that votes differently in each election, mean more than states that are solidly one political affiliation or another. This is where all the campaign stops are, and where money is spent. Barack Obama did not campaign in the South. Why? Because it wouldn't have swayed people anyhow. He stayed in the North and West, and particularly in the Midwest, where all the swing states are. Romney stayed in the conservative states and went through the Midwest thoroughly as well.

This system was developed back in the 1780s because the people who were allowed to vote at the time (white landowning males) were thought to maybe be too stupid to be allowed this right of voting. The idea was that these electors would be educated men of means from their districts who could basically prevent a tyrant from being popularly elected by promising all kinds of hocus pocus to the people. It is one of the definitive classical Liberal (big L Liberal, not to be confused with "liberal" which is a modern word that doesn't mean the same thing as "Liberal") things in the U.S. government. Electors today are just party cronies who are appointed and would never betray their appointor. What this means is that you could theoretically lose the popular vote but win by getting enough electoral votes, and no one would stop you. Or we could elect a tyrant or something, but that's pretty far-fetched.

What I'm trying to hammer home is that while the US isn't a representative republic, the system isn't particularly representative at all. Your vote matters more in some areas than others, but if you happen to be a Socialist, Libertarian, etc, your vote really doesn't mean anything at all anywhere. So why bother?

I'll use Italy as an example instead of the UK because it's a little more pure as far as a parliamentary democracy is concerned for the comparison. In Italy, there are something like 17 major political parties. The reason this exists is because its government is representative of the vote. If 30% vote for one party, 20% for another, 20% for a third, and 30% for a fourth, that is relatively how many seats that that party will occupy in the parliament. This means that with 400 some odd seats, it is likely that your constituency will end up with some (if meagre) representation.

Now, this isn't without problems, because sometimes when things break down poorly, they can't reach the 60% or whatever majority they're going to need in the parliament to choose the new Prime Minister, because they have to work together to do that. If that is the case the previous Prime Minister can actually dissolve Parliament and make people vote again, hoping to make a more definite coalition. This can get tiresome, and is seen as the downside.

Anyhow, that system is much more simple, but was designed in different times than the American constitutional system. The American system is essentially designed such that the landed gentry of the country could run for office and be elected by their white male peers. It actually worked very well for that purpose for a long time, and government went smoothly. The wheels come off when suddenly the people that you once owned are given basic rights as human beings, and you start (god forbid) treating women as human beings as well.

I'll continue this treatise if anyone actually wants to read it. But those are your basic differences.

[Kilkenne]

Also, it's a common misconception that the American colonists won through superior guerrilla tactics and cunning. While that's great and sure kept a lot of redcoats pinned down in a massively expensive and lengthy conflict, you have to also remember that the American Revolution was only one of several theaters of was in an Anglo-French conflict that was ongoing at the time. Without the French Navy mucking about and French Regulars to help the colonists (who were never more than 55% or so rebels), the colonists could have used all the guerrilla tactics in the world but wouldn't have stopped the British.

American pride about "winning" the Revolution is great and all, but 80% of the effort and 90% of the expense was paid for by France. Least we paid them back by being BACK TO BACK WW2 CHAMPIONS, MURIKA

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Firetooth, the government would not be able to wage a full war against its own populace. To kill your source of money and power would be suicide. That's why they must not be allowed to disarm us, because once they no longer have reason to fear us they would be allowed to do as they please. If we can't actively resist in a way that hinders their operations, they can ignore our pleas. They should fear us, not the other way around.

But then there's also the other reasons. Personal defense, sport, economy. We should at least pretend to be adults that don't need everything potentially dangerous taken away from them. There's a certain luxury of being able to make your own decisions sometimes.

[Genevieve]

The only argument against gun-control I've seen here (in my somewhat hasty skim reading) is "we need guns so we can defend ourselves WHEN OBAMA SETS HIS ARMIES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE". And people are still posting as if this thread is serious?

Man do I miss those pre-1996 days when I could be without fear of not being able to defend myself in the looming civil war.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Again no one has said anything about Obama. Also several other arguments have been presented you're just upside down likely making it hard to think clearly with all the blood in your head.

[Genevieve]

My head is literally about to explode.

So how does it feel to be in agreement with the brilliant Wyanor?

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Feels pretty bad to be honest, but in my defense I don't think he understands what's happening so its okay.