Originally posted by: alkemyst
Going into Iraq is a lot different than taking on the US. Their people as a whole have a lot less education as well, that goes a LONG way.
Learn Chemistry though...I can make up whatever you wish with some glassware and heat, some filter and litmus paper, etc....and yes I spent 7 years doing chemical and biological science...I still read a lot about it as well.
If you think no one in the US owns armor piercing weapons...I have no response...other than you trolling.
That said, I am not going to hunt a tank with a pistol of any kind. Again this is you trolling.
My argument was against my government attacking me. I am confident that my MILITARY can turn back any attack that will create a land war on US soil.
I think this is all beyond you though.
Splendid.
The above comments illustrate a lot of the issues around gun ownership. When questioned, the average gun owner proponent will claim that his weapon is solely for self-defence and nothing more. However, there is of course a bigman/penis extension factor... who *really* needs anti-armoyr rounds to defend themselves in their own home? Things are a little out of hand I daresay.
My argument was against my government attacking me. I am confident that my MILITARY can turn back any attack that will create a land war on US soil.
#1 America is a LOT different than many countries out there. First we are a target, second we have much of the world's economy ... take us over and profit!
We were talking of gun ownership and it's necessity in modern times, but somehow have been drawn into some debate as to how you feel you could take down a tank, but not any tank... an Abrams tank none the less. I'm positive you're extremely clever - your posts are saturated with intelligent comment after all - and am certain that you could use your chemistry set to construct an armour-piercing tank-busting device, and more power to you for being able to do so.
However, your rate of explosives manufacture is going to be somewhat slower than the military. Plus, unless you have a massive stockpile of these weapons you're going to be at further disadvantage. Assuming for some insane, impossible reason, the US military declares war upon it's own people (
😕 ), it's still going to be people with light arms against said raptors/apaches/tanks/APCs/tomahawk missiles/nimitz cruisers/destroyers etc etc etc etc.
It's not the 1700s any longer; you'd barely slow the military down, let alone hold them off.
Good luck to the commander giving the order to his soldiers to shoot their own people that they joined the military specifically to defend, incidentally.
I'm not really sure where you're going with your line of thought or from which orifice it originated, but I'm not too interested as to where it's leading - if anywhere.
Originally posted by: K1052
You claimed (wrongly) that the prediction of only the criminals having guns as a result of the ban had proved incorrect. The fact is that the law abiding citizens were the only ones disarmed by the law, not the criminals.
The US can't stop illegals or drugs from entering the country. I have little faith that we could stem a torrent of illegal weapons flowing over the same border. A comprehensive gun ban in the US would result in such a thriving black market. For that matter the UK will likely never be able to cut off illegal weapons imports either.
So again, only the criminals have the guns.
I agree that only the criminals will have guns, but I disagree that it'd be a good idea to suddenly allow anyone in the UK to go ahead and buy a gun in an attempt to make things safe. Perhaps you misread my earlier post:
Secondly, the US is now stuck in a situation not unlike the M.A.D. scenario with nukes. If the US/Europe decided to scrap every single warhead they had, it wouldn't be long before North Korea or some other equally friendly country invaded or attacked the coalition. Since practically anyone short of a lunatic can jump through the hoop(s) and own a gun and the country is near saturated with firearms, it's just too late in the day to try and enforce some new policy with the aim of reducing numbers of firearms in the population.
My view is that it is too late to try and remove guns from the US since so many are about. In the UK, however, it's more of a problem of guns being smuggled in which is easier to address than changing an entire culture (although the US does seem to feel it can do this to other countries).
I think it's somewhat pointless comparing the US to other countries when discussing the gun laws because of the american culture, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread which I still feel is as conclusive as it was when originally posted.
