Funniest thing I have ever seen in my life (Piers Morgan-Alex Jones interview)

[Wildtree]

315 million people in the US, over 300 million registered legal guns in the US. You dont think there is enough?

No..
Because 1. that includes tens of thousands of collectors too.....
32% of US households have firearms. The 300 mio registered guns also doesn't mean that they are all still in legal possession. Many of then are in the hands of criminals.
But lets even neglect that...... Let's count totally idealized to showcase...
32% of 315 mio. is 100.8 mio. 100.8 mio people have a total of 300 mio legally registered firearms. Which makes it roughly 3 weapons per household.
That's idealized, extremely even, since household sizes vary. And there are not 315 mio households. But it gets close to the reality, as far as a ballpark number can go.
Now in case of any tyranny you imply that all those 32% households would automatically be part of the resistance? I highly doubt that.
I am sure it's safe to say that not even 50% of said households would join any resistance.
N-7 is right on the money there.

If the army doesn't back any tyrant, the tyranny would be over before it even starts.
If the army does support the tyrant, then there's no chance in hell to defeat it. Especially not THAT army. The USA prides itself to sport the most advanced and highest trained army anywhere in the world. And you believe that a bunch of farmers with pitchforks (not much more are those weapons in the hands of untrained civilians) are capable to defeat that army?
If you really believe that, make sure to send your family away before you start the rebellion. Because they will suffer, and they will suffer bad.
Remember, you want to take on a tyrant. Tyrants don't hesitate to kill for no reason at all.
And where exactly would you want to fight? it's not a guerrilla war. The army is at home here. They are on their own turf too.
In the resident areas? Hiding behind and inside houses? Those cardboard boxes, called a house give almost zero cover. They are built with 2x4's, plywood and drywall sheets. They blow up in a second.

[N-7]

315 million people in the US, over 300 million registered legal guns in the US. You dont think there is enough?

Yeah, let us see how your guns fare against the might of the United States of America air force especially those nasty unmanned drones or even standard military tanks. If you seriously think that anything beside a one-sided massacre if the (god forbid) US government went rogue would happen you're far too optimistic.

[rnbwtrout]

The question is compared to American government, the number one militaristic power there are only two things that could win you a war over it in it is own territory which are:
a. If the rest of the world decided that the citizens of America are more valuable than the government and decides to help the people defeat that government.
b. If the US army decides that it won't serve a tyrannical government and sides with the people.

If a time comes where the US governments turn to tyranny and none of a. and b. applies then I believe no amount of guns that the citizens may have would save the day.

you're talking about reactionary tactics and last resort scenarios and miss the whole point in the first place. refer to my replies. how do you treat a sheep and how do you treat a lion? take away a citizen's rights to arm and you've effectively taken away their fangs and their claws and turned them into sheep, sheep ripe for a slaughter. the slaughtering may not come tomorrow, it may not come the next year or the year after; but the point is, as sheep, you've lost all the dignities of a lion.

lose your dignity, lose your respect and you open yourself to all sorts of abuse by outsiders and by your own government as proven time and time again throughout history. that's the core issue that you guys don't appreciate. let me quote Abraham Lincoln in a little speech he gave: "...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." as long as the people maintain their dignity and respect, they can ensure that this process does not end.

[Zhangfei]

Here's a video by Benn Swan breaking down the numbers here

However Raw Statistics mean nothing. The US has over 315,000,000 citizens, the UK has 63,000,000 citizens. They have 1/5 of our population, so you need to have a proportional rate to compare them.

Another thing the UK might have lower deaths to firearms, but the violent crimes there are the worst in the EU and worse compared to the US. tsk tsk tsk.

It's hugely disproportionate. It's not even close. If the UK had a population the same size as America, we'd have 150 gun deaths a year.

Let's put it bluntly; would you rather have a slightly higher violent crime rate, or a massively higher murder rate? America is doing something very, very wrong.

Sad that many Brits don't take classical liberalism seriously anymore

Gun ownership =/= classic liberalism. Plus classic liberalism has had its day in the sun. I thought most Western countries pretty much subscribed to social liberalism now.

[Hiricine]

Yeah, let us see how your guns fare against the might of the United States of America air force especially those nasty unmanned drones or even standard military tanks. If you seriously think that anything beside a one-sided massacre if the (god forbid) US government went rogue would happen you're far too optimistic.

An insurrection from the American populace would easily defeat the United States armed forces. The military couldn't even keep its ranks together if it started killing civilians.

[N-7]

you're talking about reactionary tactics and last resort scenarios and miss the whole point in the first place. refer to my replies. how do you treat a sheep and how do you treat a lion? take away a citizen's rights to arm and you've effectively taken away their fangs and their claws and turned them into sheep, sheep ripe for a slaughter. the slaughtering may not come tomorrow, it may not come the next year or the year after; but the point is, as sheep, you've lost all the dignities of a lion.

lose your dignity, lose your respect and you open yourself to all sorts of abuse by outsiders and by your own government as proven time and time again throughout history. that's the core issue that you guys don't appreciate. let me quote Abraham Lincoln in a little speech he gave: "...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." as long as the people maintain their dignity and respect, they can ensure that this process does not end.

The thing is, with or without weapons the average citizen of the US (or other countries for that matter) is in fact a sheep even if he appeared as if he is a lion.

[Wildtree]

Alex did go overboard. But he's right, its just hard to listen to when someone rants like that.

Facts are facts though. Europes violent crimes rises while US vilent crime diminishes, yet the US are viewed as the "GUN toting radicals". I'll take lower violent crimes rates and keep our guns. You can't stop mental unstable pople from their actions.

Both of them are idiots.

Europe's crime does not rise in overall....
You also should try to inform you about the problematic on comparing such things entirely. Because fact of the matter is that crime records depend on how track is kept.
The USA doesn't have a very thorough extremely detailed crime recording. Whereas some European countries have deep going records and analysis. That's a key part on crime prevention.
Go to the FBI site, pull the US crime records, and then go to the BKA website and pull the records of Germany. Compare the lists.
The USA is too neglecting, the Germans are too anal. Well, if one wants to call it anal to break down every single incident into any kind of category. In that case, I believe it's a good thing to be anal.
Yet it results in Germany records and reports crimes, which aren't even on record in the USA altogether.
Hence why we need to stick to numbers that can in fact be compared, because they are recorded equally. And when you do that, the USA's rates are dramatically higher in many cases.

[N-7]

An insurrection from the American populace would easily defeat the United States armed forces. The military couldn't even keep its ranks together if it started killing civilians.

Which is why I said that unless your military cooperates with you, there is nothing that you can do. So, my question is if you know for certain that the military would join the resistance so why would the resistance need the weaponry if the military is going to do their job for them?

[Wildtree]

It's hugely disproportionate. It's not even close. If the UK had a population the same size as America, we'd have 150 gun deaths a year.

Let's put it bluntly; would you rather have a slightly higher violent crime rate, or a massively higher murder rate? America is doing something very, very wrong.



Gun ownership =/= classic liberalism. Plus classic liberalism has had its day in the sun. I thought most Western countries pretty much subscribed to social liberalism now.

rather hopeless to explain the concept of per capita counts to Linkedblade. He's tainted with unbelievable amounts of misconception and misinformation.
If you read the former pages, you will see...

[Netherspark]

Uh, this wasn't meant to be a gun or conspiracy debate... i'm not sure how it turned into that. This was a link to a video of a madman making a fool of himself.. nothing more.

[Shigeru]

I'm sorry, isn't one of the amendments about your right for free speech? The whole 'get Piers Morgan deported for something he said' is just a massive pile of rotten hypocrisy.

[Zhangfei]

rather hopeless to explain the concept of per capita counts to Linkedblade. He's tainted with unbelievable amounts of misconception and misinformation.
If you read the former pages, you will see...

Anyone who defends gun ownership on petty idealism against fact pretty much has to live with their head buried in the sand. You have two proper types of country that prevents mass murder; you either ban guns or you legislate the living hell out of them (Britain vs Switzerland.) America wants to cling to an ideal of the 17th century in the Bill of Rights that was copied into the American version later. It's outdated, unnecessary and anti-freedom; nothing is a true denier of freedom like taking life. Life is more important.

Murders still happen without guns, but at a drastically lower rate. It's better for everyone. You don't get school shootings, for example.

[Hiricine]

Which is why I said that unless your military cooperates with you, there is nothing that you can do. So, my question is if you know for certain that the military would join the resistance so why would the resistance need the weaponry if the military is going to do their job for them?

Its obviously not an all-or-nothing issue. Even without a single military defection I'd gamble armed citizens could defeat the united states military on the grounds of greatly outnumbering it. Even the greatest militaries in the last century haven't been able to defeat armed populations that greatly outnumber them--- just look at Vietnam.

[Wildtree]

Which is why I said that unless your military cooperates with you, there is nothing that you can do. So, my question is if you know for certain that the military would join the resistance so why would the resistance need the weaponry if the military is going to do their job for them?

History teaches, the military always sided with the tyrant. Actually, more than often it was the military who put the tyrant into powers.
Soviet Union was a military regime. Saddam, military regime. And the list goes on and on and on.. Back to Genghis Khan, and further...

[Priestiality]

Anyone who defends gun ownership on petty idealism against fact pretty much has to live with their head buried in the sand. You have two proper types of country that prevents mass murder; you either ban guns or you legislate the living hell out of them (Britain vs Switzerland.) America wants to cling to an ideal of the 17th century in the Bill of Rights that was copied into the American version later. It's outdated, unnecessary and anti-freedom; nothing is a true denier of freedom like taking life. Life is more important.

Murders still happen without guns, but at a drastically lower rate. It's better for everyone. You don't get school shootings, for example.

All those people willingly giving their lives for freedom in the middle east would like a word with you.

[zEmini]

The military has too many soldiers with families in the US. The moment they start murdering civilians, they would likely defect and join the militia. I know people in the military and this has been a topic of debate.

[N-7]

Its obviously not an all-or-nothing issue. Even without a single military defection I'd gamble armed citizens could defeat the united states military on the grounds of greatly outnumbering it. Even the greatest militaries in the last century haven't been able to defeat armed populations that greatly outnumber them--- just look at Vietnam.

Vietnam wasn't at home, it was a stupid adventure thousands of miles a way. We're speaking about a civil war where both sides are at home. Without defection the civilians won't stand a chance.

History teaches, the military always sided with the tyrant. Actually, more than often it was the military who put the tyrant into powers.
Soviet Union was a military regime. Saddam, military regime. And the list goes on and on and on.. Back to Genghis Khan, and further...

Agreed, and it is often for the mutual benefit of both the tyrant and military heads.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, isn't one of the amendments about your right for free speech? The whole 'get Piers Morgan deported for something he said' is just a massive pile of rotten hypocrisy.

plus we dont want him back here, so dont deport him

[Zhangfei]

All those people willingly giving their lives for freedom in the middle east would like a word with you.

I've spoken to soldiers about gun control and war. You know, it may surprise you, but soldiers come in all shapes and sizes with differing views. It's almost like they're people!

History teaches, the military always sided with the tyrant. Actually, more than often it was the military who put the tyrant into powers. Soviet Union was a military regime. Saddam, military regime. And the list goes on and on and on.. Back to Genghis Khan, and further...

Actually, in France, the UK and the USA they tend to side with the people. It's why the separation of powers works so well and a philosophy we find very hard to export to other countries. The military sees itself as a tool to defend homes, not control the state.

[N-7]

All those people willingly giving their lives for freedom in the middle east would like a word with you.

And when the government is too strong (Gulf countries, Iran, etc...) their selfless sacrifice fall on deaf ears.