Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The presence of heavy weaponry. Not rifles. hence my point that if your population is armed to the teeth with the best weaponry - that can act as a deterrant to genocide. It is not an argument for everybody to have their own gun. It is an argument for everyone to have their own rocket launcher.

The reality is that if you don't have the rifles, you don't get the rocket launchers. No one wants to give them to you if you haven't already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons and you won't be able to capture them.

Originally Posted by DanaC

One of the problems, for me, with the 'gun ownership prevents genocide' argument is that it gives a false sense of security against potential state violence. The reason there has been no genocide ofthe American population is not because the population is armed. Nor would the population being routinely armed prevent a genocide if the state turned against them, or if one part ofthe population turned against another part.

It can help discourage the attempt and prevent the completion of it. That's why there are still warring factions in so many countries. They haven't been able to complete it.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The only defence against genocide or tyranny is political ...

You're a self described political animal. That's just self serving.

Originally Posted by DanaC

You're right that an armed population can launch an insurrection in the face of tyranny - but that could only ever be a stop gap measure whilst better weaponry and external support were sought to assist that insurrection.

It's worked before, that's how we kicked your asses.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The big question is how likely are you to ever face such a threat? the answer to that is not very likely at all.

I've never had an automobile accident and probably never will; yet, I carry car insurance. In fact, it's the law. Sensible people don't rely on the odds when it comes to what they can't afford to loose. We don't want to end up like you again. Color us fussy.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The threat of an armed populace dissolving into a brutal and bloody civil war is far more of a threat, but only where the political status quo has collapsed - the defence against that is to strenthen political systems and ties, not to make sure that everybody has a gun for when the shit hits the fan.

The defense is all of the above. That's why it's still in our Constitution and hasn't been repealed. You're not allowed to have them because your government considers you inferior. Can't you just be happy for us that we're doing better?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The reality is that if you don't have the rifles, you don't get the rocket launchers. No one wants to give them to you if you haven't already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons and you won't be able to capture them.

That point I agree on.

It can help discourage the attempt and prevent the completion of it. That's why there are still warring factions in so many countries. They haven't been able to complete it.

It can - but it can also enable the completion of it. Some of thw worst genocides in history wewre facilitated by a well armed populace.

You're a self described political animal. That's just self serving.

That's just silly. I just mean I am interested in politics. I am not a part of the political machine beyond having access to a ballot paper.

It's worked before, that's how we kicked your asses.

The British were not attempting to commit genocide against the colonists. And, frankly that was a wholly different situation to the possibility of the US government attempting to impose tyranny on the modern USA, or parts of it.

Kicked our asses *rolls eyes*. In the same way as the Viet Cong kicked your asses? Of course they didn't. The American War of Independence was an extremely complex beast, as indeed was the War of 1812. One of the key deciding factors for the former was that Britain had very little appetite for that war. The Government was split almost fifty-fifty between Tories and Whigs, and was changing political hands with almost dizzying regularity. We effectively sabotaged our own war effort (quite a few whig sympathetic military commanders in America were implicated in that btw). Parliament's support for and supply of troops for America was tenuous at best and attempts to drive home advantages after some of the individual victories were prevented by a number of factors including that political ill-will.

Britain's prime concern at that time was not keeping hold of the American colonies. We were far too wrapped up in our ever lasting and ongoing conflict with France and Spain, and the newly emerging fields of the British East India company.

The early patriots set the stage for that conflict, but it was primarily the American army that was formed, along with the French that won the war. There were many stages of that conflict at which the victory could have gone either way - a very complex series of factors combined to give that victory to the Americans and it was a fragile one. At the end of the day, probably the biggest factor, along with French support, was the homeground advantage that allowed the the continental army to outlast and survive past the point that Britain could continue to prosecute a war thousands of miles away, with very little support for it at home. It was absolutely a victory. But it was not a comprehensive 'asskicking'. that kind of assessment just doesn't work for most conflicts. It is rarely that simple and certainly wasn't in that conflict.

And America did not 'win' the war of 1812. Nor did they lose.

I've never had an automobile accident and probably never will; yet, I carry car insurance. In fact, it's the law. Sensible people don't rely on the odds when it comes to what they can't afford to loose. We don't want to end up like you again. Color us fussy.

The thing about insurers is they do consider the likelihood of events. You have never had an autombile accident, but the odds of you doing so at some point in your life are very high. The odds of you being swallowed up by a sinkhole whilst walking your dog are much smaller. Most people do not take out sinkhole insurance for walking their dogs.

And - I'm not sure what you mean by 'end up like us again'.

The defense is all of the above. That's why it's still in our Constitution and hasn't been repealed. You're not allowed to have them because your government considers you inferior. Can't you just be happy for us that we're doing better?

It has nothing to do with inferiority. The laws on weapon ownership were devised and voted on by parliament - a parliament made up of representatives of their constituents. Whilst that does not (clearly:p) guarantee that it will always act according to the will ofthe people, the laws on firearms were broadly popular. People in this country want guns not to be a day to day part of life. Anybody who is not mentally ill and can adhere to the rules of safe keeping can apply for a licence to keep firearms. In general, we prefer to keep firearms ownership to a minimum - held by people trained in their use. Even our police are not routinely armed.

Which may be why so few of us get killed or injured by guns .

You are doing better in many respects. And I am happy for you. But you seem to be labouring under the impression that the British state has not changed since the days of King George III and a parliament made up entirely of aristocrats, placemen and rotten boroughs imposing their will on a subject people with no input in how they should be governed. We are a parliamentary democracy - the government hasn't imposed disarmament upon us. We have elected not to be an armed populace as an acceptable price to pay for not having thousands of gun deaths per annum.