Civilians have more guns than armies/police!

Certainly not a good situation worldwide, but the problem isn't with guns themselves, it is with economics.

If one is capable of earning a satisfactory lifestyle through a good job and various legal means, then that is very well. No need for a gun, unless you happen to enjoy target shooting (which I know some gun owners here do).

If one feels that one has no choice but to resort to illegal means to support oneself or one's family, one must carry a weapon to continue this lifestyle. This protects against the police and other criminals.

The issue isn't (if guns, then crime); the issue is (if crime, then guns).
 
Then why haven't we in the UK been tyrannically oppressed?
You have a chief of state who has said position due to birth, is also head of an official religion for your nation. You don't call that tyrannical? We did, and fought to rid ourselves of it.
 
You have a chief of state who has said position due to birth, is also head of an official religion for your nation. You don't call that tyrannical? We did, and fought to rid ourselves of it.

the reason we revolted agaisnt england is because we did not want to pay taxes, specificly booze tax. That is actualy how moonshine started.

also after the war president Washington started to tax the sell of whiskey, that is realy where the term moonshine started.
 
You have a chief of state who has said position due to birth, is also head of an official religion for your nation. You don't call that tyrannical? We did, and fought to rid ourselves of it.

It would be, if they had any sway. They don't.
 
As the idiot who started that tangent, all I can say is that it was a good example. :)

Oh, it was. And I was certainly not implying than you're an idiot - rather, I'm the idiot for not planning for it ;)


This is actually what I came in here to say. :blush:

:lol: I saved you time then :)

You have a chief of state who has said position due to birth, is also head of an official religion for your nation. You don't call that tyrannical? We did, and fought to rid ourselves of it.

Bah. You should have CUT HER HEAD OFF!

;)
 
the reason we revolted agaisnt england is because we did not want to pay taxes, specificly booze tax. That is actualy how moonshine started.

A bit more than that...

Spoiler :

The history of the present King of Great Britain George III is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.



We defeated a tyrant only through force of arms, because that is the only thing a tyrant recognizes, raw force. We must ever be an armed society and be watchful of another tyrant occupying a position of power over us and subjecting us again to such acts.
 
Civilians have more guns than armies/police!
Oh noes!

As long as most of them are law abiding citizens who never fire their weapon at another human being (Or only do so legally) why should I care?
 
Yay for guns!

I don't see why anyone would get their knickers twisted over it.
 
No Way! I'm not going to put my shooters down for nobody!

Well, I don't have shooters, but as soon as I get a job, I'm gonna get a gun.
 
US person: the world is indeed safer when guns are in the hands of civilians, that way their rights won't be trampled by evil governments, and they can better protect themselves against evil criminals.
Euro person: the world is indeed less safe now that guns are in the hands of civilians, since the more guns, the more gun-related crimes and accidents.

We should close this thread now. You've summed it up.
 
We should close this thread now. You've summed it up.

But there's till the issue of whether what is good for the US (having an armed populace) is good for the rest of the world. Are there special conditions that allow for people to use guns in a more responsible manner? Can we apply one line of thinking to most of the countries of the world?
 
I have a question about this stat. Does it include personal weapons of military personel as civilian held or military held? I mean if it counts weapons that are held by military personel then its a bit over exaggerated in how much the civilian populuce has.

Also should we not take into account the certain areas around the world where a gun is a necessity to live. Be it the farmer in the US who has to go hunting for food, or the Iraqi civilian who has to keep the armed militias and Insurgents at bay.

Last thing does the stat count weapons held by militias and non-offical military entities as civilian or military. I mean I can garentee you that alot of militias stateside have one hell of alot of weapons but I wouldn't really consider them civies.
 
Last thing does the stat count weapons held by militias and non-offical military entities as civilian or military. I mean I can garentee you that alot of militias stateside have one hell of alot of weapons but I wouldn't really consider them civies.
Private militias sure as heck are civvies.
 
Private militias sure as heck are civvies.

By definition they are civies but I am refering more specifically to private militias who solely are together to get called up in case of emergency to protect the state\province\country they are in. It still is a civie operation but its not like they have guns just to have guns like a civie who has no militia affilation is.
 
By definition they are civies but I am refering more specifically to private militias who solely are together to get called up in case of emergency to protect the state\province\country they are in. It still is a civie operation but its not like they have guns just to have guns like a civie who has no militia affilation is.
They are civvies because they are not under the control of the US government. That's what separates the from the National Guard. There is also no guarantee that they'll act in the best interests of the US.
 
None the less I still wouldn't necessarily count them as civies for this stat. They are to some degree organized, and I will grant they have no garentee that they will act with the best interests of the US. So long as they are organized I wouldn't really count them as civies in this stat in any case.
 
None the less I still wouldn't necessarily count them as civies for this stat. They are to some degree organized, and I will grant they have no garentee that they will act with the best interests of the US. So long as they are organized I wouldn't really count them as civies in this stat in any case.
What about a vigilante? Is he/she a cop?
 
No but that is a lone person. A group and its organizational ability should determine if they count someone as a civie with guns or non-civie with guns. I am only saying for the purposes of this stat as it is a bit misleading depending on how and who they count as what.
 
No but that is a lone person. A group and its organizational ability should determine if they count someone as a civie with guns or non-civie with guns. I am only saying for the purposes of this stat as it is a bit misleading depending on how and who they count as what.
Well what about an organized group of vigilantes? Are they cops?
 
Back
Top Bottom