So if gun control isn’t the solution what is?

@Ozuye502

I guess it only has a positive effect in the rest of the world... USA is just really special.

@Ozuye502 I should put a laugh up here. But this isnt funny as all. Its a sad fact of war that in the battle between attack and defence, attack always wins. It just finds another way. So advocating greater defence is just wrong. You have to find a different path..😷

@Ozuye502 or maybe we fix the law so that police in schools have to do their job of serving and protecting. We don't need more private industry exploiting the public sector for government contracts.

Privatization doesn't solve everything, and often times in public sectors it makes it worse (example: private prison industry). Rich districts would probably do okay, but underfunded ones aren't going to be helped.

@Kwek00 a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Now lets modernize the language
A uniformly armed and trained military being necessary to maintain a sovereign nation, the right of the citizens to keep sufficient arms and ammunition shall not be infringed.
As someone who has needed a firearm i am thankful i had one!
Just ask Ukraine how well gun control worked out for them. Or the jews of Europe in the 1940s. Or anyone living under a tyrant.
You can win a defensive battle with appropriate tactics and history is filed with examples.

@ViciDraco well theres a really great solution to that have school security fall under the DOD problem solved that budget always get passed

@Ozuye502 If one of the biggest militairy powers in the world, can be stopped by people that believe Red Dawn is the best movie ever and needs to be re-enacted at some point... I think that's a bit delusional.


If you think the Jews with a bunch of weapons could have stopped the entire German apparatus... you a bit delusional. Also, Ukraine didn't have guns, and they are still there... isn't that an example that works against you?

@Kwek00 you do realize that unlike our politicians our military understands that its oath of service is NOT to the gooberment sorry government. Hence the whole "threats both foreign and domestic" part.
You are right Ukraine didn’t have guns but at the start of the war Ukrainian government was handing them out like candy on Halloween to anybody willing to take up arms against an invading force. Well the framers kinda skip that step.
The Jews of 1940s Germany may or may not have won but could have put up a good fight. See your missing the asymmetrical warfare component of this hypothetical would work. See theres a reason why the attack on pearl harbor wasn't followed up by a land invasion. Because they knew they would be out gunned by the civilian population.
Perfect example of asymmetrical warfare is the wars in Afghanistan they are bloody and costly but they are effective involves gorllia war tactics. So yes they are effective even against the biggest bad ass on the block.
When the Obama administration ran the red vs blue simulation in a war against the American population 125 times theres only one scenario that the government actually came out successful. That was getting the un involved and would have ened up with charges of treason while retaining 100% of all current personnel. So yes the American population armed as it is would win in a war against the government. Its not delusional its factual.

@Ozuye502
Man, if some foreign power feels confident enough to invade a country with a militairy power comparible to the US. Your militia, won't make much of a dent. If the own governement turns authoritarian, they need the militairy to do so. Authoritarian governements need to have support from the militairy or their dictatorial ideas will never be put into practise. The militairy might not take their oath to the governement, it takes it oath to the state and it's citizens. But at the end of the day, that doesn't create a safe zone where the militairy can't back up an authoritarian regime. So if the enemy is foreign of domestic, espescially in the case of the United States, your normal people with guns would largely be a big joke.


🤷‍♂️ I'm pretty sure the framers also didn't understand how dumb this 2nd amendment thing would be after years of rechewing and reframing. I'm pretty sure if these people looked at the societal cost of "skipping the step", they would gladly not skip it in the future.


Pearl Harbor was a militairy base. Militairy bases are bound to be armed you don't need to "make up" and fantasize about armed civilians here. 🤦‍♂️ And the Japanese apperently didn't have the resources to deal with that. But does it matter? The main objective was to destroy the fleet... which they did. You are just making stuff up as we go along here. And this idea that the Jewis population could just put up a fight, and this would be better for your argument. Seems a bit ridiculous considering that the likelihood of success is just... well, horendously bad. A bit like guerrilla warfare that isn't backed up by a large percentage of the poppulation. But even then, it's ridiculous to rationalise the societal cost that comes with the pro-gun argument with an ineffecient means of defense (that during non-conflict times, does more damadge then most conflicts).


Source desperatly needed here.