The Czech/British murder rate is actually half of the lowest US state murder rate (per 100.000).
I am not connecting that with firearms, I am merely stating that US is a violent country by most of EU standards.
ok yes slightly exergating with the entire world but for you to have to compare your country with a nation such as mexico and honduras to find any comfort speaks for its self , lets stick to the developed world .
because its quite clear that you’re better packing some serious fire power than not if you lived in somlia so this entire argument wouldnt even be worth it .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1564, topic:21032”]
You should really get this through your head. Ill say it nice and slow. 9 0 % of the gun murders in the U.S are gang members shooting each other. Take those gang members away and magic thats almost 8,000 murders less each year. The amount of legal guns on the streets do not make the murder rate go up.
[/quote] let me just shoot this argument down in its tracks , you love to bring up the point with gangs which on the face of it is a fair argument and it would also make up 90% of the UK murders however you miss one huge point .
you’re only looking at murders , lets look at the US deaths caused by a firearm so not just murder but including accidents we then find a figure much larger .
per 100,000 you have 10.30 gun related deaths the UK …0.25 yes just read that a few times so you fully under stand that figure.
90% of that my friend is down to stupid idiots being allowed to own a gun .
so now lets look at cezch republic where guns are restricted we have a figure of 1.76 per 100,000 .
you getting the patten there,
USA -10.3 deaths/100,000
cezch republic - 1.76/100,000
UK-0.25/100,000
Then you would be wasting millions of dollar, if not billions, on ordinance to destroy units of one man. The massive hunter base in america is huge, and you would be getting attacked by one person at a time or many from alot of dif places. we wouldnt be a solid force, so you couldnt just bomb us out.
25 million hunters in america. Killing things isnt that hard, i have done it, and a human is no different then an animal, and we would hav even more reason to seeing as you would be invading our homes, killing our friends and family. i thhink you are very very wrong in saying that because people do some nasty shit to protect those they care about, and more importantly themselves.
1 Like
So you’re completely changing the situation to suit your argument ? nice .
you’re arguing with someone who has 12 years experience in warfare and you have 0 you really dont have a leg to stand on here .
you dont have the knowledge to have this debate so please stop . stick to guns you have some knowledge and experience their
you cannot prevent accidents with any kind of tool. Car accidents happen, knife accidents happen, ect. Accidents alone is not a valid reason to ban something.
Uh no 90% of that is jackass black gang members who get illegal guns or steal them and go shoot each other. The government wont do anything about them that is the problem.
Doesn’t sound like they’re really that restricted there. In fact some guns @snejdarek has mentioned are illegal in the U.S.
the difference between killing a person and killing an animal is fucking huge .
[quote=“Daniel_Boon, post:1571, topic:21032”]
Then you would be wasting millions of dollar, if not billions, on ordinance to destroy units of one man. The massive hunter base in america is huge, and you would be getting attacked by one person at a time or many from alot of dif places. we wouldnt be a solid force, so you couldnt just bomb us out.
[/quote] indeed but once you take the cities you have taken the main centers so you can potenitally tighten the hold on the guerrillas force also hits morale of any individual fighting to defend when he sees his nation under control of the invading force and will be more likely to lay down their weapons ,
ultimately a guerilla war can never truly beat their opponent the aim is to make it so expensive and costly its no longer worth the hassle .
also the difference between hunting a animal and hunting a trained soldier who will out manoeuvre and out gun you is much harder .
you will find many wouldnt fight the invasion simply because they have not go the bollocks too .
most i would suspect would opt to join the army and fight in that way .
No i’m not. We were talking about insurgencies against a large invasion force. We moved on from the special forces argument.
Your military experience has nothing do with what we’re really arguing. You’re saying that only a small amount of U.S citizens would resist. You’re also saying that unless a person is trained in the military he can’t do jack shit against an invading army which we both know this is bullshit. Your ancestors learned this the hard way and it has happend many times through out history.
not true as your murder rate is 5 per 100,000 but your actual deaths are 10.3/100,000.
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1573, topic:21032”]
Doesn’t sound like they’re really that restricted there. In fact some guns @snejdarek has mentioned are illegal in the U.S.
[/quote] but the process to get them is harder and longer than the US
Uh how the hell do you know that? We compared concealed carry process and they were very similar.
90% of the murders are done by gang bangers. With accidents theres nothing you can really do about that. You can’t treat people like children. There are far more car accidents than gun accidents each year. So by that logic we should ban cars because too many idiots have access to them.
many times though out you history ohh please go on . when was the last time the US population rose up in their millions and fended off an invasion … go on please .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1575, topic:21032”]
No i’m not. We were talking about insurgencies against a large invasion force. We moved on from the special forces argument.
[/quote] no we are not we are debating my situation of a russian special forces and airborne assault on alaska you have changed the debate in an attempt to rescue you argument .
no you should restrict guns to bring down the gun related deaths per 100,000 to much lower levels that way less people die .
ohh your logic is so beautiful
dat logic doe .
i have got a great fucking idea . dont give guns to people who dont know how to use and store them .
give them a tank as well fuck it lets go the whole way what does it matter people get killed by cars
I said history in general. A lot of countries have fought Guerrilla wars. As for the U.S lets count the revolutionary war, the Texas revolution, and the civil war.
Uh you haven’t been talking about special forces for a while either.
You’re absolutely right we shouldn’t give cars to anyone because most people get in a car accident at least once in their life. And alcohol most people have proven they can’t drink responsibly so i say lets ban it.
Thats literally how stupid your argument is.
2,000 people which includes soldiers fought against the attack .
my personal favourite line
“Sam Houston steadily retreated towards the border with Louisiana; terrified civilians fled with the army,”
people joined the army on the side they supported a huge difference between joining the army or a organised rebel army to joining a guerrilla struggle
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1581, topic:21032”]
revolutionary war
[/quote] give you that one but not that many civilans took up arms compared to the percentages of the population you’re suggesting would in todays day and age
yes i have been . your quotes dont prove otherwise
thats why you cant drink until you are of a suitable age
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1582, topic:21032”]
You’re absolutely right we shouldn’t give cars to anyone because most people get in a car accident at least once in their life. And alcohol most people have proven they can’t drink responsibly so i say lets ban it.
[/quote] US logic can own a gun and drive a car before you can have a beer
There were plenty of Texans harassing Mexican supply lines. In fact the Mexican army was wiped out by a small force in an ambush that ended the war.
No the confederates sent raiding party’s into northern territory and they were considered militia. There goals were to cut supply lines and cause havoc.
And thats why you can’t own a fucking gun until you’re old enough to fight in the military, good god.
Yes i don’t agree with that. I think the drinking age should be 18 but this doesn’t really help your argument in any way.
so why shoudnt we be allowed tanks and fighter jets ?
or even small nuclear bombs because more people die of cars a year than they do nukes
The 2nd amendment is in place to make sure people have the same arms as the military. Key word being arms. There called arms because you carry them in your arms, get it? So it would be unconstitutional for us to own tanks and nukes i would assume.