During WWII, the Japanese figured out that they could not successfully conduct land warfare in the USA, as nearly half of the US population was armed at the time. Since WWII, more and more people have settled in urban areas; shooting ranges have been encroached upon and many have been closed down over the years. Some states have very restrictive laws on firearms. Many are quite lenenient.Welcome to America! A pistol and a shotgun please. And another couple for my friends here..
I don't share the view that guns are the answer to everything. In the end, we all have to face declining powers, illness and pain to a greater or lesser extent. Up to a point, being able to use a firearm may equalise the strength of a physically weaker individual against a fitter opponent, but that's as far as it goes. Even that advantage fails in the face of some conditions such as blindness, paralysis, or dementia.I have a .44 magnum, several .30-06's, an AR-15, several other rifles, shotguns and handguns, and about 20,000 rounds of ammo.
Don't **** me off.
I have a very long fuse. It's not pleasant when I get to the end of it; I don't like to go there at all.
It's almost funny how natural that phrase comes out of you people State-side. On the other hand, it sounds quite unreasonable in my ears and I bet in every pair of ears living in the big urban centres in Europe.It is about personal responsibility, I am responsible for protecting me and my family instead of hoping someone else can do it for me.
Not really if you look at them.But Sarge we have like the most lax gun laws in the country.
So if a country has nothing to gain from disarming it's citizens, then it has nothing to lose by allowing them to arm themselves; What the nation stands to lose by disarming is that the nation can no longer defend itself on it's own soil without relying wholly on the military if **** hits the fan. As Wookie mentioned in post #4, that's why we weren't hit at home in WWII:...the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard ... seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. "I hate guns," he said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates
I hope the sense of ascension over the barbarism of gun ownership is enough to comfort you with the giant target painted on your back... But of course it is, because I know you won't acknowledge that the target exists.“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
I didn't realize there was ever an argument!There is clearly a big cultural difference when it comes to guns.
It does seem that Europeans are generally against the unlicenced holding of guns, whilst generally Americans are all for it.
Perhaps the only way to settle this is to accept that neither side is going to budge. It is too embedded in the ways we've been brought up and live.
Agree to disagree on this one?
There are no right answers!