Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

That's what your King thought too.

Damn good advice,read on.

 

the US militia was getting raped until france stepped in

 

Have you noticed. that when looking at these stats for the UK Its hard to find stats for all of the UK,You either get England-Wales like he one you posted or England-Scotland I have yet to see stats for all England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.

Wouldn't our "USA" stats look better if we hand picked the stats that looked favorable? IE: Leave out the bad states.

 

So you say, you have a reputation here for saying things you won't or can't defend.


List of American Revolutionary War battles

Try giving this a read, you will see how wrong you are.

 

Bad states? more like bad areas within each state. Imagine if we did a gun violence study in NY but we didn't count NYC and the surrounding urban areas. Or doing California without LA and the like, perhaps MA without Boston. This would look very pleasing.

 

Fake guns are that much easier to get, that much cheaper, and carry a far lesser penalty for using, hence why even in the US many use fake guns themselves.

No, you can't stop criminals from obtaining guns, hence I'm not going to take away the right of the legal person to have guns.

Afghanistan(Soviet and American among others), Iraq, Vietnam(French and American), Algeria in the 60's from France, ect....

 

How can I find page 25 in a two page document?

No, the penalty for using a converted replica or some other kind of zip gun is the same as for using a real one. And why would you suggest it has anything to do with penalties if you whole point is that criminals ignore the law so laws against guns are futile?

And how does any of this prove your point that gun control is "not working" despite "best efforts"?

 

None of these are victories by won by the common man taking the rifle from above his fireplace and chasing off the invader. All these rebel armies has massive supplies of miltary grade hardware, usually sourced from abroad.

And if we need to learn from the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, shouldn't the right to bear arms include the right to surface to air missiles? I don't read anywhere in the second amendment that says arms only includes guns.

 

All of those while supplied with other weapons were still largely backed by militias mainly armed with assault rifles and jeeps, not literally but they were still basically rag tag militias that the most modern, well trained and equipped armies of the world could not subdue.

When trying to take away a right, the proof needs to be on the side that gun control is in fact working.

 

Haha that's an interesting point. Only difference on this account was neither side of battle had much armed experience before battle. In fact the very idea that any soldier would have professional training was rejected straight out. So basically, they were the same level of professionalism and it was a pretty even playing field.

http://www.iansa.org/action/woa2005/uk-law.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/06/ukcrime.ukguns

The Vietnamese I would argue were much better trained. They used their knowledge of guerilla tactics and their own homeland against the Americans lack of training in this field and dominated the western enemy. Interestingly, they feared Australian enemy as they were much better trained for it. The war with French colonialists I know little of though.
Iraqi people were kept under the rule of Sadam Hussain, if you recall. He tortured and killed thousands of his own people. How would an uprising have worked so well?
Not going further right now as am about to go to dinner.

 

Not even close, you're saying the World's Largest and Well Trained Naval Force"Royal Navy" didn't have a upper hand?

The Brits were well trained an organized in every aspect of war.

Royal Navy

110+ years not much? You could go back as far as the year 900.

 

I mean the current Iraq operation, it took years for nearly 200,000 troops of the most well equipped western armies to finally get a decent grip on the whole country.

The British army even in 1776 was totally professional and considered the best in the world, along with the royal navy. If anything the fact numerous American generals had served in the British army and had the training along with experience from life in the colonies and during the French and Indian war gave us a massive edge.

In my mind this just brings to mind:

 

hmmm, thinking of the US attackig nowerdays canada.... defeat? after that, it was a quite open fight, with the US loosing new york, but stabilising after trenton;

to make a looooong story of battles of this was short, the US had a few victorys and more losses until the french started to equip and train the US army (Beaumarchais, starting in 1776). however, even after that they lost Philadelphia - and then turning the tide with the battle Saragota.

keep in mind, even with with french support the war lasted until 1781. despite popular believe, the US militas were no match for the british forces (even though the gained a few starting wins). it was french know how and training that made the US militia battleworth, and it was french money and wepaons that financed the war. and without french naval support, the US would have had great, great difficulties taking or holding any costal areas.

hussein had the support of a significant %age of the population (the schiits).

decent grip? the country is at the brink of a civil war - you call that a "decent grip" ?

well, there were several important factors for the independence war: 1. logistics (yes, having to ferry all your soldiers and material over the atlantic may be a bit of a disadvantage); 2. french involvement - the US really didnt do all too well until the french started training their troops (military advisors and material support ppl would say these days); 3.the open war between the french and the UK (1778);4. the open war between spain and the UK (1779); 5. the armed neutrality of the russians (1780-83).

the UK was fighting all over the world against countrys with much more power and of much more importance (Spain, French) then the US. these wars raged (paralell to the independence war) in europe, africa, india and on the major oceans.

the royal navy was stretched very very thing due to the need to protect merchantmen and colonys all over the world from the other major naval powers (French, Spain). so, its actually quite interesting, because they did have in fact the naval upperhand a the coasts - however, not over the atlantic, which was a battlefield on its own.

thats true. however, you may not forget the strategic picture, that was totally to the disadvatage to the british - just look in my post, i described them pretty well. and, fact was also that the british did heavily rely on mercenarys (most famous: germans) and natives.

 

Iraq is still a bit of a mess, which just further proves my point, but Iraq now compared to say 2005 is by better then it was.

And yes there are logistics to take into account, but there's also the American logistics of having an army you can't afford to pay, 1/3 of the population that has it's loyalties to the crown, an army that is often militia who are not required to fight and poorly trained, and in most cases outnumbered in both men and artillery along with supplies. The Americans had many victories even without help. The shot heard round the world, the militia devastated the British from Concord on their march back to Boston.

Bunker hill(which actually didn't happen on Bunker hill) despite the colonials eventually losing, the British suffered such high causualties they couldn't follow up on it.

The British were forced to evacuate Boston without the Americans having to fire a shot, with the help of the cannons the Americans had captured at their victory at Fort Ticonderoga

Saratoga has already been mentioned

Battle of Trenton, though in reality minor was a great tactical plan and deeply needed morale boost.

While Philadelphia was taken after the Battle of Brandywine, tactical victory for the British, but in the end a strategic one for the Americans, the British had a mindset too influenced in European war where taking the capital would end the war, but no, it just tied up thousands of British troops for years.

Battle of Monmouth in 1778

Battle of White Marsh in 1777

Both those above the British greatly outnumbered the Americans

The battle of Sullivan's island, 500 militia defeated 1,500 regular redcoats that had naval support

Battle of Springfield in 1780 which stopped and British advance into New jersey
Then everything came to a head in Yorktown


While the British in the end did win far more battles then the Americans, it's not how many battles you win, it's which ones you win. Remember in WW1 the central powers by far for most of the war won the most battles, as in WW2 Germany basically near didn't lose a battle for 4 years.

Though the real question is how did the American revolution come up, I mean I know how, militia with guns ect, but this is history, even I agree what happened in 1780 shouldn't be relevant to current debate.

 

The English civil war we're talking of? No, that's not true. Check this link: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/soldiers_english_civil_war.htm. Or were you referring to something different, which in that case I apologise.

 

the british were outnumbered, not the US.

 

1776? That's the American civil war. I thought this was about the British Civil war 100-odd years earlier?

 

Um


No?

Only at few times did the Continentals outnumber the British, both in the large picture and in battles. The only way the Americans outnumber the British is if you take the militia into account, but keeping in mind there was a loyalist militia. Not to mention the fact the continental army suffered a high rate of desertion and revolving service.

 

Our civil war was actually the 1860's, 1776 was our war with you guys, but I'm not sure, between modern wars, English civil wars and the American revolution all kinds of war talk is going on at once.

 

My point was about the British civil war of 1640's. Not American civil wars or wars between America and Britain. It all got confused and people seemed to think I was talking of other wars, which I wouldn't because I know nothing of these other two wars, other than the bare minimum. And I apologise, yes the American civil war was 1860's, I should have known that. The end of the slave trade was 1865. That was hammered into my head in high school when we learnt about the Slave trade in History lessons!