Please read:
Realistically, if the US ever became a dictatorship which controlled the military's purse-strings, which is the most likely scenario of course, then the civilians would have zero chance against the gov't with their puny civilian grade armaments. A couple of tanks or helicopters against 100s or even 1000s of guys with even fully automatic rifles would be more than enough to quell them.

Besides, I guarantee you that most of the gun nuts of today would be the ones on the side of the dictatorship in the first place. They are far more politically right-wing, authoritarian, totalitarian, blind-faith patriotism bordering on nationalism than any of the folks of the American Revolution.

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.

"But what are the costs of having a country full of guns? Well, let's use America's statistics"
swiss gun statistics show that having a country full of guns can work perfectly fine when a country is ruled by the citizens, instead of fake democracy.

@Des I fail to see your point, if guns are outlawed we will not see an outbreak of mass laptop killings. Guns are far more efficient. My point stands about the knives^^^

Guns laws are there for a reason.

@The Man Who'd Buy Spain

While there guns give them a heavy advantage (compared to no gun countries) if they ever had to fight an oppression government I doubt they'd have the spirt to fight for long anyway. And it's not really worth the cost still it's swings and rounderbouts.

What you don't take into account, my dear Luna, is that if a certain government of a pro-gun nation were to become so shitty that it would warrant a rebellion, the civilians would have a certain percentage of the military fighting alongside them, as can be seen in the American Civil War. I'm not saying which side would win, just that people wouldn't give up straight away.

Haha good point hopefully it won't come to that ever

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.

Don't ask me. Ask the gun nuts who try to use this concept to justify their fear of gun laws.

It's like asking an atheist to define the god they don't believe in. It's not up to the atheist to define the god. It's up to the believer. The atheist just points out the inevitable holes in the believers' god-concepts. Same here. Gun nuts think that their guns protect them from some hypothetical future where the US gov't goes out of control and they need to fight back; typically, some form of dictatorship. How did it get this way? Beats me. Ask the gun nuts.

"But what are the costs of having a country full of guns? Well, let's use America's statistics"
swiss gun statistics show that having a country full of guns can work perfectly fine when a country is ruled by the citizens, instead of fake democracy.

Le sigh. These bogus arguments are so easy to debunk if you take 10 seconds to google them. One of the first links I found was to this http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/20/charleston-south-carolina-shooting-gun-control-reform-myths which said:

Myth No4: Switzerland and Israel seem to do OK without gun control

Proponents of unfettered gun ownership often point to the example of Switzerland, which has a tradition of more widespread firearms ownership than most other European countries but is not known for its gun-ravaged inner cities.

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).

But even this comparison gets weaker if you look at the way the Swiss keep their guns, which stems from a tradition of military service that has been considerably tightened over the years. One US study by the National Institutes of Health points out that both Switzerland and Israel (another alleged exception to the rule touted as proof that guns don’t kill) actually limit firearm ownership considerably and require permit renewal one to four times annually.

Those are just the kind of gun control measures, in fact, that second-amendment fans in the US claim wouldn’t make any difference to gun violence.

(Bold added by me.)

I also learned (learning! what a great thing!) that recently Switzerland (in response to a mass shooting!) changed its rules about ammunition. According to a comment by a Swiss person on another article by Time, which repeated the myth uncritically:

"Gun-loving Swiss"?!? Seriously?!? This is disinformation!!! I'm very disappointed in the Time.

Switzerland is very gun averse! But the country sees it as a necessary evil to protect our country from outside theats. It comes from our history having a milicia and not a professional army. We, Swiss, hate guns! The grand majority of Swiss people feel that it is not necessary to keep our army rifle at home. So now, we don't have ammunition at home anymore. And the time we did have ammunition, we would go to jail as soon as we unpacked it without authorization. And unlike the US, we don't have guns to protect ourselves individually, but to protect our country. It's deep in our culture. And our laws prohibit the use of guns, even under threat. In Switzerland, if we get threatened by a person with a knife in our home and we kill him with a gun, we go to jail. That's because here, this would be an disproportionately inappropriate response to that threat.

(Bold added by me.)

They no longer keep their (militia) ammo at home but in a secure community depot.

For more (accurate rather than baloney) info, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Ive read through all of this and their are some interesting arguments in here. Looking through them all puts a nice perspective on things. However there are a few things that ive noticed.

1.)Lets say America does set up anti-gun laws. The general populace has no more guns. But guess who will be figuring out ways to get guns? Everyday criminals. Gangsters and terrorists will always find a way to get guns. So how would one stop those kind of people from attaining illegal firearms? Because the idea of taking away guns is to keep people safe. So how would you keep people safe if criminals are the ones with guns?

2.)What if America remained pro-gun but Federal/State laws would require testing? This could help reduce injuries and stupid mistakes, could it not?

3.) America is not like Europe. They are very different in comparison. Socially,culturally, and overall in general. America has always been a sort of odd ball since its birth. Very few nations had implemented a republic democracy at the time. How would one implement anti-gun laws using European practice here in America?

4.)Lets take a moment to look at the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. Now, im sure quite a few different reasons on why things played out over there as they did but im going to touch up on only a few things. The people of Ukraine were peacefully protesting the actions of its government. Three times they assembled together peacefully and three times the police engaged the people to drive them away. At first it was just peaceful protesting and beatings. But when the people began to become more applying of their rights of protest, the police began killing people.

Something similar is happening in South Korea. The people were peacefully protesting and the police began to push them back and beat them. Killing some.

So to my question, how are the rights of the people guaranteed if they have no way to excerise or enforce them under a corrupt governnment?

Those are just a few questions I have for some of you. If it sounds like im pro-gun its because I am. But im trying to be sincere in my questioning.

So to my question, how are the rights of the people guaranteed if they have no way to excerise or enforce them under a corrupt governnment?

Austria has a corrupt coverment too (maybe even more corrupt than yours) and we can guarantee our rights without guns.

Lets hypothetically say the Austrian government wanted to do something their way and refuse to listen to its people? What then? The people would have two choices, either deal with what the government is doing or protest. If you deal with it you subjugate yourselves to them. But if you protest, the government wont listen they will attempt to quell any protests because they view it as civil unrest.

But then again, Austria has probably found a way to make that work. I wouldn't know because im not familiar with Austrian laws.

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 :^)