One problem is the trend is not that different: more guns still lead to more shooting, just less so than in America. Switzerland is actually second among wealthy countries in terms of annual gun deaths (0.77 per 100,000 of population in one recent survey, versus 2.97 in the US and just 0.07 in England and Wales) but has barely half as many guns per 100 people (45.7 versus 88.8 in the US).

wct, this is misleading.

In Switzerland, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2013: 0.23
2012: 0.16
2011: 0.28
2010: 0.19
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

This is in line with other western countrys in europe.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/178/rate_of_gun_homicide/18,48,50,65,66,69,71,86,87,88,125,149,172,177,192,194

Looking to the Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method), you will see that the UK, who scored very low at firearm homicide per 100,000 population, it still has a high (any method)homicide rate, so they just use different method then firearm.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/178/rate_of_homicide_any_method/18,48,50,65,66,69,71,86,87,88,125,149,172,177,192,194

Switzerland ranked at No. 3 at Rate of Privately Owned Firearms per 100 Population - World Ranking.
At the same time Switzerland has one of the lowest homicide ratings(any method).

And how would the US go about becoming a dictatorship in the first place? The one thing Americans treasure is their idea of being free. One cannot snap their fingers and turn the US into a totalitarian government, there would need to be a strung-out process of slowly taking away the freedoms of the people.

America is a dictatorship as much as the rest. Everyone is free, but not free to do everything, keep your money, or vote for a national leader, and the truth that Americans value their freedom is a result of well-done propaganda, and I guess the past, too (America was one of the biggest republics in the 1700s). This has not happened recently, but nearly all countries have became dictatorships by the 1930s. I do not have really a stance on gun control, but 100, even 1000 protestors each with a handgun, maybe even a rifle, is not going to do a thing against modern, expensive, and off-market warfare (easiest thing to think of: a tank/APC).

+1 Juq

I agree here, even if you American civilians were armed, in case of dictatorship, you would be able to do nothing at all against a seasoned and trained army with the most advanced war weapons, tanks, drones, or the air force.

Things about guns are that you think you are in security, but it is only meant to be psychological, because if something like a dictatorial America ever happens, thousands of armed civilians wont stop the Army.
However, things were different 200 years ago like there:





But this was 200 years ago.

Ironically France is not a pro gun nation (no longer, that was done so long ago), but our national anthem would make you think the contrary:

Aux armes citoyens! Formez vos bataillons! Marchons, marchons! Qu'un sang impur, abreuve nos sillons!
To arms, citizens! Form your battalions! Let's march, let's march! Let an impure blood, Water our furrows!

(well this anthem was also made 200 years ago so... yeah)

Lol, angry panda getting mad because his country hates guns and still gets hit by terrorist attacks. Banning guns doesnt make you safer, it makes it much harder to protect yourselves.

1.4 million is the number of soldiers the US currently fields.

318 million is the number of US citizens.
About the third of the American population owns a gun
151 million are male within the age to legally serve in armed forces.

Im not saying overthrowing a mad American government is guaranteed but there is some potential. The statistics I provided do not include able bodied women either. That would be another 100 million at the least. 250 million vs 1.5 million. Not guaranteed but possible.

During its Declaration of Independence American people defended against the world power at the time.
Afghanistan defended itself from both Russians and Americans. Two of the leading powers.

Again, not saying overthrowing the American government is guaranteed but there is some potential.

Edited 11/19/2015 01:55:03

lawlz i dont care really about having a gun or not, it wont get me happier at all, could you please at least read what I posted earlier about the terrorist attacks, before posting stupid things? thanks.

I agree here, even if you American civilians were armed, in case of dictatorship, you would be able to do nothing at all against a seasoned and trained army with the most advanced war weapons, tanks, drones, or the air force.

But, thing is, the military will be split, as well.

You all say thousands, but the population of America is over 300 million, so clearly there will be millions, spread out across the US from densely populated cities to wilderness. If it takes the US around ten years to get a simpler situation to a near finished situation why would the US be able to outright destroy a insurgency in a much more complicated situation in a quick manner?

before posting stupid things?

You first :^)

I realize this all started from a joke/troll post (c'mon, the most fun of a troll post is to make it seem semi-thought out) but the interesting point of "if the military tried to take your guns, could they?" bears more consideration.

On the face of it, of course, yes. A fully equipped US military, striking from a position of surprise, could exterminate the non-military citizens. There would be insurrections, it would take quite a while, but eventually, they'd succeed in subjugating/butchering without foreign intervention (and I would expect there would be HEAVY foreign intervention). Could also nuke the country into atomic rubble and declare themselves kings and queens of a graveyard. Wee!

In practice could they? Of course, no. How likely do you think it is that the military (typically populated by pro-gun, pro-US persons) would back a government giving such orders instead of just... you know, killing or ignoring the gov't official ordering it? An American government attempting to subjugate its populace by removing its freedoms is going to also have to face down a military that has fought to maintain that freedom as well as an indeterminate but appreciable portion of the country. Even if the military threw a repressive coup of its own volition, there would be heavily splintered factions instead of a unified front. Lawlessness would reign supreme and as in most of those situations, everyone "in charge" would almost certainly end up dead. Not gonna be a simple military vs nonmilitary. Americans are largely a violent people, and there are already guns all over the place. It would end in absolute disaster. Wee!

So no, the military would not be able to bow the country under its thumb so simply, and yes guns do promise that a govt that says "we've outlawed voting" will get summarily executed. Might even help the country to have some shenanigans like that.

Even under less dramatic circumstances, if you're a police officer ordered to confiscate guns from a non-criminal, would you? And let's say you're ordered to take the guns from a bunch of retired military folks... and if you tried, who do you really think would walk away from that scenario? If you're the police captain, do you send your officers out? If you're a civilian in such a hellish tyranny, if you see the cop walking to your front door, how do you react?

It's a fun thought process, even if the original post was spaghettio diarrhea.

Oh, to hell with "The citizenry can't possibly fight against a better armed, better trained force!"

How did the North Vietnamese win against the better armed, better trained American force? How did the Americans hold out against the, again, better armed, better trained British force until the French joined? How does any small military hold out against a larger force?

Guerrilla Warfare. That's how.

Also, don't underestimate a trained knife user: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

Edited 11/19/2015 03:36:55

1.4 million is the number of soldiers the US currently fields.

That's a very hard number to get, what is your source?

318 million is the number of US citizens.
About the third of the American population owns a gun
151 million are male within the age to legally serve in armed forces.

Im not saying overthrowing a mad American government is guaranteed but there is some potential. The statistics I provided do not include able bodied women either. That would be another 100 million at the least. 250 million vs 1.5 million. Not guaranteed but possible.

Even assuming your military folk count is right, that's a 160 : 1 ratio, even with all the grownups in the country participating. There was a poll a while back in Belarus. And revolutions never have all the folk participating for, they usually have folk to counter-revolution, even. So, say 16% grownups fight against, and 4% fight for government (but they are not military folk). The ratio now is 7 : 2. Now think about how the minority has advanced weapons, not just loads and loads tanks (while just about noone has a tank as a civilian), but satellites, chemical weapons, and God knows what under the heat and cold. That's an easy 4 kills for each soldier, and 7 : 2 is a low estimate I'm using. The only way a revolution would be successful is if it has foreign support. Don't bring a gun to an artillery fight.

But, thing is, the military will be split, as well.

That's an assumption, and I doubt it would happen. America has no military mandate, so everyone in the military, in such a "patriotic" country, is fighting to "serve their country". And even if the military is split, that still does not make grounds for civilians having firearms.

So many people on this thread don't seem to understand the concept of Guerrilla Warfare. The United States military was facing rag-tag militias (Or if you're going to nitpick over my terminology: Groups equivalent in skill level to militias) in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As non-Americans on this site love pointing out: Those wars were a horrific failure. It took unbelievable amounts of destruction and bloodshed to gain even an inch of ground.

The U.S military couldn't beat soldiers hiding in the jungle.
The U.S military couldn't (fully) beat insurgents hiding in the mountains.
The U.S military wouldn't be able to defeat civilian resistance groups hiding in rural areas.

Anyone who's studied Vietnam,Iraq, and Afghanistan should see the "Civilian insurgents can't beat a modern military" argument as the nonsense it is.

Could also nuke the country into atomic rubble and declare themselves kings and queens of a graveyard.

Obviously, don't atom bomb places that are valuable; that's an unfair thing to say. Just drop some more atom bombs in the desert.

How likely do you think it is that the military (typically populated by pro-gun, pro-US persons) would back a government giving such orders instead of just... you know, killing or ignoring the gov't official ordering it?

I was more thinking that American folk would make a revolution themselves, but here, this problem you list is easy to solve.

Don't underestimate the power of psychologic warfare. Just keep the for-America feelings, and just happen to talk about the dangers and bad things with loose gun control loads, with full coincidence, as well as how ugly and disgusting it must be to betray your country, and what a sad and pathetic time you'll have if you do.

An American government attempting to subjugate its populace by removing its freedoms is going to also have to face down a military that has fought to maintain that freedom as well as an indeterminate but appreciable portion of the country.

The American military have never fought to hold gun freedom, and I don't think they have fought for freedom at all since the Barbary wars. Just teach the military different, they already like America.

Even if the military threw a repressive coup of its own volition, there would be heavily splintered factions instead of a unified front.

This is likely for both sides.

Lawlessness would reign supreme and as in most of those situations, everyone "in charge" would almost certainly end up dead.

That's bit of grounds why folk are so reluctant to fight in the first place: it's hard, you have a strong chance of dying, and you're probably not going to improve the situation. But just like any civil war, most places don't end up in anarchy, but under some control. See chronologic maps of West Province, the Levant region, and East Ukraine, just about none of it is in this anarchy. And, as typical in wars, authoritarianism grows, not wanes.

Not gonna be a simple military vs nonmilitary.

That's the point of the rain, nonmilitary ag military.

Americans are largely a violent people, and there are already guns all over the place. It would end in absolute disaster.

Give me the median amount of tanks that the average American owns. For the few that have antitank guns, filter again: can each antitanker kill 10 tanks?

Much of your same post relies on these things you have said, so skip.

Even under less dramatic circumstances, if you're a police officer ordered to confiscate guns from a non-criminal, would you? And let's say you're ordered to take the guns from a bunch of retired military folks... and if you tried, who do you really think would walk away from that scenario? If you're the police captain, do you send your officers out? If you're a civilian in such a hellish tyranny, if you see the cop walking to your front door, how do you react?

That's why this isn't just the police doing this (who have roughly the same warfare that civilians do). Shoot up the "suspect", if there are such folk.

How did the North Vietnamese win against the better armed, better trained American force? How did the Americans hold out against the, again, better armed, better trained British force until the French joined? How does any small military hold out against a larger force?

Guerrilla Warfare.

Guerrilla warfare does not always work. Vietnam has historically been a very great place for guerrilla warfare. What about the guerrilla warfare in the Second World War? There was loads, but Yugoslavia and Belarus weren't stopping anybody; Vietnam and Myanmar weren't either.

Anyone who's studied Vietnam,Iraq, and Afghanistan should see the "Civilian insurgents can't beat a modern military" argument as the nonsense it is.

I thought the argument that a civilian revolution without foreign intervention and majority military defection was as laughable as America is justified to bomb the Middle East to the stone age. Now you should study the Panama (1990s), Shaba II, and not involving America, many more such as the Nepalese Civil War. Jungle or mountains, guerrilla warfare can fail.

Nobody said guerrilla warfare always works, but it can and often has.

The incidents of success prove that a conventional army CAN be defeated by unconventional means, and thus debunks this argument that armed civilians would have no chance against the government.

You can argue how high said chance is, but there would be a chance none the less.

No military is invincible.

What I was meaning is that guerrilla warfare is (un)successful to loads of factors, that, until identified, can not really be talked about as a certainty. (Possibly, these can be poor winds/motivation and terrain (other than some snow in a place which is isolated and noone lives in (and is not suitable for long-time guerrilla warfare) and some heat, where again, noone lives.) and objects (America won the Iraq War in a 9 month campaign in 2003, I don't know what it was doing there the rest of the time)). There will always be a chance, but in convention, 0.0001% rounds to 0%.

And furthermore, the examples you had, they were all guerrilla warfare with well-armed (not just with firearms), and organised, to extents.

As someone who did the Army thing(hooah), I feel it worth mentioning that one of the primary tenants constantly and universally celebrated is that you fight for the freedom of Americans. That you are willing to kill and die for even people who hate you, so that they have the right to spit on your grave, because that is their American right. Similarly, they pound into your head that you have obligation to refuse any order you find to be morally wrong. They teach these sort of things for a reason.

You cannot say "Oh, it'd be easy to convince the military to enslave and subjugate people in a manner directly at conflict with their training/conditioning/tenants/ideological purposes" any more than you can posit mind control. If you're going to go on the premise that anyone can be convinced of anything, then an argument is irrelevant. You cannot fight an omnipotent. Who exactly is supposed to convince the military to change their mind on supporting the Bill of Rights? Because many folks have tried and no one has had any success. From a cynical standpoint, there's also a HUGE amount of money in the firearm industry that would be working against those efforts.

The distinction that folks currently in the military are so different from those not is the part in err. Anything that causes a civilian uprising inherently sparks a military division as well. The point of the rant is that there cannot be a purely military v nonmilitary--you'd have military vehicles on all major sides and open war in as the country split apart while insurrectionist forces all screwed each other over. Eventually there would be some manner of peace in most remaining regions(always is), but realistically, both sides would lose unless one were willing and capable of mass genocide ie nuke large portions of the populated country. It'd fall, as usual, to foreign countries backing various fronts until America either reclaimed itself or died.

Also, to be technical, a fundamental American right promised in the Bill of Rights is the right to assemble arms for the purpose of a militia. So to that extent every time the military fights under the guise of ensuring American rights and freedoms... yeah, that is part of why they're fighting. Whether they're managing it rationally or effectively is of course debatable and yours to decide, but from the Army's perspective, that's something for which you kill or die. America is the idea established in the Constitution, not simply a set of borders

wct, this is misleading.

In Switzerland, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

Woohoo, your reply is misleading. The commenter I quoted referred to 'gun deaths'. The stats you refer to were for 'gun homicides'. Not all deaths are homicides. If you're going to use stats, use them correctly.

Besides, I wasn't the one making the comment in the first place, I was just quoting someone. The main point was to refute the Swiss myths. I didn't check that particular claim. It could be inaccurate, but a) you haven't actually compared apples to apples, so you haven't shown it inaccurate, and b) it wouldn't matter to my argument one way or another where specifically Switzerland stands in gun deaths, because the point is that they are not easily comparable to America or other countries as gun nuts pretend they are. There are a lot of factors which are glossed over.