www.forbes.com
I said it's perfectly possible (to make blanket statements) when the issue is black and white
Do read.
1. Your talking as if a negative can't be proven, when some can
2. And no I'm not, I'm asking you to give an example of a country that made a positive decision, NOT to invade another because of the proliferation of guns amongst the population. That's NOT a negative.
Just not deciding to invade is a negative
But actually making a conscious decision NOT to invade is not
Yes, and sometimes on a temporary basis (eg: USA and Iraq 2003) and sometimes on a permanent one (eg: Iraq and Kuwait 1990).
"The exception that proves the rule" - you have heard of this ?
Exception that proves the rule - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Welcome.
The Ukraines have had some success against tanks using such weapons. And interesting to note, they were designed to be used against tanks.
Only The Brave: How Ukrainians Can Take On Russian Tanks With Molotov Cocktails
The Ukrainian government has urged citizens to make Molotov cocktails to use against the Russian invaders. Modern armor is much less vulnerable to these improvised weapons, but there are ways Ukrainians could still use them effectively — with co-ordination and a lot of courage.
First, I'd say you present opinion and not much fact. Owning a firearm doesn't deter much, having the grit to face a far superior enemy after seeing a dozen hot headed patriots get turned into rather noxious ground meat is a rather rare commodity. Minor ambushes or nuisance random gunfire doesn't rattle the average Big city citizen, nor trained professionals.
Now what I will say, given my belief that there is at least some armed citizenry detergency, is it might be fair to debate whether the degree of deterrence (and with deference to yourself, I'll add, "if any"), is indeed commensurate with the additional hazards the prevalence of weapons in society may present?
But that's a whole 'nother facet to this discussion, and one I have no desire to debate!
We have 12 million Gulf War 1 and younger veterans.First, I'd say you present opinion and not much fact. Owning a firearm doesn't deter much, having the grit to face a far superior enemy after seeing a dozen hot headed patriots get turned into rather noxious ground meat is a rather rare commodity. Minor ambushes or nuisance random gunfire doesn't rattle the average Big city citizen, nor trained professionals.
The Boers were well known for being well armed. Didn't stop the British from invading. Americans were known for being well armed, again the British invaded. What caused the invasion against the Boers so rough??? They had been fighting Natives for decades. They were hardened to a tough and tumble life. However, when the British could get a tactical upper hand the Boers broke and fled not unlike the 'trained' American militia confronted by battle hardened British Regulars on the Bladensburg Plain and at our National Capital...
Today the average never served 'patriot' is all for storming a non-military site, going back to the climate controlled hotel room and ordering room service (such patriotic fervor deserves such treats) But fighting in a realistic combat zone- low or high intensity- takes a bit more fiber and hardness...
No, but the point of "Today the average never served 'patriot' is all for storming a non-military site, going back to the climate controlled hotel room and ordering room service (such patriotic fervor deserves such treats) But fighting in a realistic combat zone- low or high intensity- takes a bit more fiber and hardness" seems to fail to acknowledge that there are quite a few trained and experienced citizens that might call themselves into service.
Feel free to calculate that number. It's not important. It's not how many "have nots" we have; it's how many "haves".
How many actually engaged in combat, stepped over still twitching bodies, or breathed in the 'sweet' smell of charred flesh??? How many were trained in infantry tactics, are still physically fit/capable??? 10% at the best???? Spread across the USofA that isn't a very big deterrent...
No idea on any of that, but we can't simply write off civilians, who include combat veterans, as inexperienced and incapable.How many actually engaged in combat, stepped over still twitching bodies, or breathed in the 'sweet' smell of charred flesh??? How many were trained in infantry tactics, are still physically fit/capable??? 10% at the best???? Spread across the USofA that isn't a very big deterrent...
How many does it take? Perhaps urban guerilla tactics can accept a wider (cough) selection of provocateurs.GWI was 30 years ago, how many 50+ vets have still kept in fighting trim??? Being a hot shot on the local one-way range is a far cry from shoot n scoot guerrilla tactics. Decades of office work doesn't keep a man fit for combat duty...
How many actually engaged in combat, stepped over still twitching bodies, or breathed in the 'sweet' smell of charred flesh??? How many were trained in infantry tactics, are still physically fit/capable??? 10% at the best???? Spread across the USofA that isn't a very big deterrent...
GWI was 30 years ago, how many 50+ vets have still kept in fighting trim??? Being a hot shot on the local one-way range is a far cry from shoot n scoot guerrilla tactics. Decades of office work doesn't keep a man fit for combat duty...
Revisionist history- not surprised...
We had a great deal of outside help. France not only gave us large sums of money, weapons, and equipment, they engaged England around the world.
The concept of citizens with their firearms protecting our nation was slammed hard on the plains of Bladensburg and the Capital. Citizens with limited training, no practical experience stood little chance against well trained, fresh from defeating Napoleon, British troops in 1814. It's the training that counts. Where our forces did well was an artillery duel at Baltimore Harbor and frontier militias with experience fighting the native tribes on the frontier. Hardened by primitive living, constant alert for raids, skirmishes- combined with supreme arrogance by the British gave Jackson his victory...
If anyone thinks a suburban overweight used to climate control, three hot squares a day, never saw even a bad car wreck close up to see the gore, smell the unmistakable odor of death is going to standup to a professional, far better supported with heavy weaponry.... well, we'd have a modern day Bladensburg races...
Our Founding Fathers were very learned men- but they were men. Just like the men who rounded up all Japanese citizens during WWII, signed treaties with the Natives and turned a blind eye to the corruption by the political appointees who robbed the supplies that were supposed to go to the treaty Natives...
No, they had just survived a war with a super-power, and were of course very leery of their return. However they were also quick to suppress citizen rebellions over taxes, hang a few ringleaders. The background is very important...
You have that in common, then. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,eh?