Mum shot by her four year old son

[Sky lord]

You missed the point entirely. You asked how in the age of modern weapons and modern armies, a population armed only with small arms, could ever defeat a modern professional military, and I mentioned just two cases where that very thing happened. Indeed, the post WW2 nuclear world, has a plethora of cases where that has occurred.

You didn't read the second sentence in my earlier post.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are / were weak pre- modern societies. If I lived in Afghanistan, a gun is an absolute necessity and yes you are right they used personal arms to beat back a professional army. But the likelihood of an professional enemy army getting past the US warships and Air Force and defenses on to the US mainland for hand to hand combat with civilians is about as probable as a snowball in hell. We should deal with real possibilities not extremely unlikely outliers.

Surprisingly the US population seems to feel under greater threat from foreign invading armies than the Germans, Australians, British or Japanese who have actually experienced it in the recent past.you threw out the British centuries ago.

Shouldn't there be a cost benefit analysis? The number of people who were saved from violent crime in the US due to their carrying deadly weapons is a tiny fraction of the number whose guns were used against them by accident or in a fit of rage by members of the household.

Anyway, just pointed it out as this love of guns is something I never understood...I feel uncomfortable even looking at one...let alone actually ever owning one. more power to you if you like them!

 

[Desertfalcon]

You didn't read the second sentence in my earlier post.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are / were weak pre- modern societies. If I lived in Afghanistan, a gun is an absolute necessity and yes you are right they used personal arms to beat back a professional army. But the likelihood of an professional enemy army getting past the US warships and Air Force and defenses on to the US mainland for hand to hand combat with civilians is about as probable as a snowball in hell. We should deal with real possibilities not extremely unlikely outliers.

Surprisingly the US population seems to feel under greater threat from foreign invading armies than the Germans, Australians, British or Japanese who have actually experienced it in the recent past.you threw out the British centuries ago.

Shouldn't there be a cost benefit analysis? The number of people who were saved from violent crime in the US due to their carrying deadly weapons is a tiny fraction of the number whose guns were used against them by accident or in a fit of rage by members of the household.

Anyway, just pointed it out as this love of guns is something I never understood...I feel uncomfortable even looking at one...let alone actually ever owning one. more power to you if you like them!

Again, you are misreading what I am saying. The American people do not want to be armed because they fear some invasion by a professional army from foreign country. I don't think the idea even shows up on surveys. They want to remain armed because they fear the possibility of tyranny from their own Federal Government.

You may be right about a cost-benefit analysis, but Americans are not going to change on this issue any time in the near future. Americans know they are among the freest peoples of the world, and they view their rights under our constitution and most importantly, their religious view of those rights coming from God, and not any political document, law, politician, or party, as unchangeable. I can tell you with 100% certainty, that even if it were possible, say the most Left-wing gun control president and Congress, somehow manage to win a freak election in a split with multiple parties or some such scenario, that any attempt to disarm the American people would without a doubt, result in the immediate outbreak of an insurgency militia movement in state after state, that would rise up in rebellion. Will that happen? No, not really a chance. My only point is to say that American gun-owners, which is almost all Americans, absolutely believe in fighting to keep their 2nd Amendment rights, just in case it could happen.

oh yeah , who wants to fight US military?

Nobody wants to, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen though, does it?

 

[surya kiran]

@Desertfalcon

what is your view on gun regulation?

 

[Desertfalcon]

@Desertfalcon

what is your view on gun regulation?

I don't mind that America has a national background check before you can purchase a firearm, and I don't mind reasonable safety regulations. For example, I would support a state, (Not federal!), law that prohibits children under a certain age from even handling a loaded firearm, even if their parents or adults are present.

I am opposed to any law that is confiscatory, or clearly violated the intent or wording of the 2nd Amendment. I am a hunter, gun owner, and holder of a concealed carry permit that allows me to carry a concealed handgun in about 30+ states. Like most gun owners (and contrary to the specific incident here), I am extremely safety conscience and have never had a single mishap with a firearm.

This is just one of those issues that for people who are not American or really familiar with America, they are just not going to understand.