How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

[NotNow]

I understand the argument that Adam is making.  Where he lives, guns have been very effectively removed from society.   There is undeniably a much lower rate of injuries from firearms there.  England does suffer from crime, and the people there (seemingly) accept that they are subjugated to the state and have no rights to protection from firearms.  They have also accepted a higher crime rate per capita than the US. 

American society is different.  We are a society founded on personal independence.  There are still vast areas of this country where the rural nature has developed a working relationship with firearms as a part of everyday life.  Americans want to be able to defend themselves.  In this country that means firearms. 

I respect the opinions of those that would institute the kinds of firearms restrictions that we see in the UK.  I don't agree, but I don't think we will settle that debate here. 

The bottom line in this debate is this:

The US Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement.  The USSC as currently constituted is not going to close their eyes to the english language.  That could change in the next few years, but as of now no change is in sight.  An attempt to modify or repeal the second amendment would not succeed.  It is my opinion that any "assault weapons ban" would not survive a court challenge.  The American people can keep and bear arms....that's the bottom line.  Any one who can read understands what the second amendment says.  We should focus our time and energy on the things that can be changed.  The mental health system, unemployment, education and purpose in the lives of our young people. 

[peestandingup]

I mean I you're talking about all sorts of things I've never mentioned. If I haven't made an argument, then I cannot answer for it. And you're talking about "bleeding heart liberals" and I'm not one of those, either. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions or responding to other people's arguments instead of mine.

And I never called you one. Just that that was who this whole thing was directed towards from the establishment. And the fact that we're not talking about those things is kinda the point since we're talking about deaths, safety & that whole betterment for society thing in general (again, that's the basis for gun control, right??). Esp since they absolutely dwarf gun deaths, not to mention how some of them have a direct effect on health/mental health in general, which in turn causes certain people to flip out & go on shooting sprees. But I guess it's much easier for people to wrap their heads around blaming a tool/object than it is to go deeper.

I'm trying to get you to look at the broad scope of this stuff & actually problem solve at the root, instead of just picking at it. So do wanna problem solve, or so you wanna blame the hammer because it was used to smash someone in the head?

Well, that logic is seriously flawed. You're basically saying that if we can't fix all of the problems facing the country (auto accidents, lack of healthcare, lack of income) we shouldn't bother trying to fix one that is really a problem -- our ridiculously high homicide rate. And when we look to tackle that ridiculously high homicide rate (of the G8 countries, second only to Russia and higher than such non-G8 countries as India, Laos and Albania), we should probably start with the method that accounts for over twice as many homicides than all other methods combined.

So I don't really understand the argument that we shouldn't try to tackle what is clearly an issue - gun homicide. The USA has a problem with murders. And the USA mainly has a problem with gun murders. If fewer guns were available there would be fewer murders. You would not eliminate murder if you eliminated guns (a rhetorical example - I am not proposing to eliminate all guns). But you would definitely reduce murders (we don't live in a "Murder She Wrote" society where every murder is premeditated and where the murderer would hatch an elaborate plot to kill his victim by some other dastardly means if a gun were not available).

I'm not talking about "bettering society" so much as I'm talking about reducing deaths. I'm not talking about saving children.

The vast majority of guns used in the commission of crimes start out as legal weapons. That means there is a way to actually tackle this issue. Reducing the number of available guns will reduce the number of gun deaths over time. It will happen gradually.

Its only flawed in your head because you're thinking two dimensionally & focusing on some moral crusade to stamp out "gun deaths", not even worrying about what causes people to do what they do in our society. And under some delusion that as long as we tackle the whole "gun homicide" issue, then it should be all roses. Never minding the fact that people would just kill each other in different ways, or the fact that most of these gun deaths happen in large urban ghettos that are plagued with crime & poverty.

So because the system's thrown these people under the bus having them kill each other like animals, or because some guy flipped his shit & went on a rampage because of the healthcare system racket, lets go ahead & punish the law abiding folks by removing that pesky 2nd amendment thing. Or at least limit it in such a way that its practically worthless. Oh, other countries like yours have done it? Well, good for you & there's nothing wrong with liking what you like. But my advice would be to stay there if that's what you're looking for & not try to pick certain elements out of the place you call home & apply it here. Because America doesn't really roll that way. And we don't roll that way for good reason.

So if you're not in it for safety, betterment of society & prevention of deaths, then what are you even talking about? Why bother?? Its an honest question that you don't seem to be grasping. Either because you're truly not getting it, or because you don't want to.

[Pinky]

Well Pinky, its regrettable that you have to descend to namecalling in these arguments.  Even if they are only fantasy slurs like 'idiot'.

Perhaps you should ponder on how constructive this kind of pish posh martyrdom approach really is.

The decline in crime happened nationally, 18 years after universal abortion became illegal in 1972.

Florida beat the rest of the country by a couple of years.

In short the correlation simply is not causal.

And it (meaning the factual basis of the decline) doesnt care whether or not you fantasize about your intellectual betters calling you an 'idiot' or any other such slur.

Just curious, since you have presumed yourself to be my "intellectual better", on what do you base that?  Surely an intellectual powerhouse such as yourself must have quite an impressive list of academic achievements.  What are they?  What degrees do you hold?

[Pinky]

Well Pinky, its regrettable that you have to descend to namecalling in these arguments.  Even if they are only fantasy slurs like 'idiot'.

Perhaps you should ponder on how constructive this kind of pish posh martyrdom approach really is.

The decline in crime happened nationally, 18 years after universal abortion became illegal in 1972.

Florida beat the rest of the country by a couple of years.

In short the correlation simply is not causal.

And it (meaning the factual basis of the decline) doesnt care whether or not you fantasize about your intellectual betters calling you an 'idiot' or any other such slur.

Just curious, since you have presumed yourself to be my "intellectual better", on what do you base that?  Surely an intellectual powerhouse such as yourself must have quite an impressive list of academic achievements.  What are they?  What degrees do you hold?

yawn.

back to subject.

Your attempt to establish a non existent causal relationship.

continue, please.

I didn't think so. 

[ronchamblin]

A friend emailed the following to me, but in a graphic form.  I translate to words.  I haven't verified the truth of the numbers. 

During the 2011 year in America:

323 Deaths by Assault Rifles.
496 Killings by Hammers.
650 Killings by Knives.
12,000 by Drunk Drivers.
195,000 By Medical Malpractice.

But in my view, this data does not warrant allowing assault rifles, as this would be like saying that we should allow more drunk drivers and drunk physicians.

But I agree with NotNow, who said somewhere, the solution will be in education, mental health counseling, and jobs for the unemployed.  I will add that things will get better in the killing world, when the society moves from one of winner take all, to one of more equality and fairness to all.

"The movie Anaconda was filmed in Chuck Norris's pants."

[I-10east]

The bottom line in this debate is this:

The US Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement.  The USSC as currently constituted is not going to close their eyes to the english language.  That could change in the next few years, but as of now no change is in sight.  An attempt to modify or repeal the second amendment would not succeed.  It is my opinion that any "assault weapons ban" would not survive a court challenge.  The American people can keep and bear arms....that's the bottom line.  Any one who can read understands what the second amendment says.  We should focus our time and energy on the things that can be changed.  The mental health system, unemployment, education and purpose in the lives of our young people. 

Bingo. The only matter that I agree with concerning this gun purchase issue is make sure that gun owners are held responsible with thorough background checks etc, and that these 'gun show loopholes' which can allow anyone to become a rogue dealer to be closed. Those are pretty much standard issues that most agree on, even some members of the NRA.

[Adam W]

I understand the argument that Adam is making.  Where he lives, guns have been very effectively removed from society.   There is undeniably a much lower rate of injuries from firearms there.  England does suffer from crime, and the people there (seemingly) accept that they are subjugated to the state and have no rights to protection from firearms.  They have also accepted a higher crime rate per capita than the US. 

American society is different.  We are a society founded on personal independence.  There are still vast areas of this country where the rural nature has developed a working relationship with firearms as a part of everyday life.  Americans want to be able to defend themselves.  In this country that means firearms. 

I respect the opinions of those that would institute the kinds of firearms restrictions that we see in the UK.  I don't agree, but I don't think we will settle that debate here. 

The bottom line in this debate is this:

The US Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement.  The USSC as currently constituted is not going to close their eyes to the english language.  That could change in the next few years, but as of now no change is in sight.  An attempt to modify or repeal the second amendment would not succeed.  It is my opinion that any "assault weapons ban" would not survive a court challenge.  The American people can keep and bear arms....that's the bottom line.  Any one who can read understands what the second amendment says.  We should focus our time and energy on the things that can be changed.  The mental health system, unemployment, education and purpose in the lives of our young people.

NotNow, I am not going to comment on what you've posted about the Second Amendment, because that's your opinion and I don't really take exception to it - even if I don't quite agree with you 100% on your interpretation.

I will, however, take exception with a couple of things you've posted about the UK:

While it's true we have very restrictive gun laws, we have not removed guns from society. You are allowed to own guns in the UK. It's a common misconception that you are not allowed to. There are a lot of gun owners in the UK. To an American gun enthusiast, it might seem like the laws over here have essentially removed them from society, but that is not the case at all. Though you are more likely to find farmers and people in the country with guns than you are to find people in cities with guns. And certain classes of guns are not allowed.

I don't think you are in any position to comment on people in the UK feeling okay with being 'subjugated to the State'. That's absolutely ludicrous. There is a different opinion about guns here than there is in the USA - but that has nothing to do with how people view their relationship with the State. It has to do with how they view guns. As far as the crime rate goes, there are real problems with those statistics - mainly because crimes are reported differently in different countries.

But that has no bearing on this discussion, as there is no evidence to suggest that UK crime figures have any functional relationship to gun ownership. You cannot suggest a link without some evidence to support it. I can think of 5 other things I would list ahead of guns when addressing crime in this country. If it were an issue of guns, a lot more of our cops would be armed, I'd think.

Edit: I did find this story which addresses the issues with how crime statistics are compiled. Interestingly, it also mentions how gun ownership is declining in the USA while crime is falling. Funny, that.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

[Adam W]

I mean I you're talking about all sorts of things I've never mentioned. If I haven't made an argument, then I cannot answer for it. And you're talking about "bleeding heart liberals" and I'm not one of those, either. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions or responding to other people's arguments instead of mine.

And I never called you one. Just that that was who this whole thing was directed towards from the establishment. And the fact that we're not talking about those things is kinda the point since we're talking about deaths, safety & that whole betterment for society thing in general (again, that's the basis for gun control, right??). Esp since they absolutely dwarf gun deaths, not to mention how some of them have a direct effect on health/mental health in general, which in turn causes certain people to flip out & go on shooting sprees. But I guess it's much easier for people to wrap their heads around blaming a tool/object than it is to go deeper.

I'm trying to get you to look at the broad scope of this stuff & actually problem solve at the root, instead of just picking at it. So do wanna problem solve, or so you wanna blame the hammer because it was used to smash someone in the head?

Well, that logic is seriously flawed. You're basically saying that if we can't fix all of the problems facing the country (auto accidents, lack of healthcare, lack of income) we shouldn't bother trying to fix one that is really a problem -- our ridiculously high homicide rate. And when we look to tackle that ridiculously high homicide rate (of the G8 countries, second only to Russia and higher than such non-G8 countries as India, Laos and Albania), we should probably start with the method that accounts for over twice as many homicides than all other methods combined.

So I don't really understand the argument that we shouldn't try to tackle what is clearly an issue - gun homicide. The USA has a problem with murders. And the USA mainly has a problem with gun murders. If fewer guns were available there would be fewer murders. You would not eliminate murder if you eliminated guns (a rhetorical example - I am not proposing to eliminate all guns). But you would definitely reduce murders (we don't live in a "Murder She Wrote" society where every murder is premeditated and where the murderer would hatch an elaborate plot to kill his victim by some other dastardly means if a gun were not available).

I'm not talking about "bettering society" so much as I'm talking about reducing deaths. I'm not talking about saving children.

The vast majority of guns used in the commission of crimes start out as legal weapons. That means there is a way to actually tackle this issue. Reducing the number of available guns will reduce the number of gun deaths over time. It will happen gradually.

Its only flawed in your head because you're thinking two dimensionally & focusing on some moral crusade to stamp out "gun deaths", not even worrying about what causes people to do what they do in our society. And under some delusion that as long as we tackle the whole "gun homicide" issue, then it should be all roses. Never minding the fact that people would just kill each other in different ways, or the fact that most of these gun deaths happen in large urban ghettos that are plagued with crime & poverty.

So because the system's thrown these people under the bus having them kill each other like animals, or because some guy flipped his shit & went on a rampage because of the healthcare system racket, lets go ahead & punish the law abiding folks by removing that pesky 2nd amendment thing. Or at least limit it in such a way that its practically worthless. Oh, other countries like yours have done it? Well, good for you & there's nothing wrong with liking what you like. But my advice would be to stay there if that's what you're looking for & not try to pick certain elements out of the place you call home & apply it here. Because America doesn't really roll that way. And we don't roll that way for good reason.

So if you're not in it for safety, betterment of society & prevention of deaths, then what are you even talking about? Why bother?? Its an honest question that you don't seem to be grasping. Either because you're truly not getting it, or because you don't want to.

You don't really need to be rude. If this really is going to turn into a variety of the old "America, like it or leave it" argument, I probably shouldn't waste my time.

In America, you can try to change things if you don't like the way they are - even the Constitution. The Second Amendment is an Amendment, after all. There are legal ways to change these things. You may not like my opinions, but I am an American citizen and, should I decide to move back to the USA (which is very likely), I might well work to change the laws to suit my political convictions - as every other American has the right to do. That's actually the way we roll in America. Or are at least supposed to.

I'm not on any moral crusade and I don't really understand how reducing gun deaths can be viewed by you as a "moral crusade" that is somehow not worth addressing, while addressing all those other issues you mention - the "issues with society" - is somehow not a moral crusade and is worth addressing.

I'd rather we take a holistic approach and do both. Who says we can't try and deal with everything that plagues society? I never said we shouldn't try to address poverty. But I cannot for one second think that people who are affected by gun violence in the inner city or "urban ghettos" would be offended if the government did something to reduce the number of guns and the resulting numbers of gun deaths in the meantime. And using that as an example - you might get an increase in stabbings as gang members have to resort to knives. I would expect that. But you wouldn't see an increase in "drive by stabbings," for example.

And the idea that people would just find another way to kill their victim if they didn't have guns is ludicrous. Guns make killing easier. People kill in the heat of the moment. Also, people shoot without thinking - oftentimes without the intent to kill. Guns can escalate a situation. I would think that if a person is plotting to kill someone, then yes - no guns may mean he or she will find another way. And there will still be people killing people, even with fewer guns. But drive-bys, guns going off by accident in robberies, guns being shot in the heat of passion (that covers a lot of different scenarios), etc wouldn't happen.

And for the record - I didn't bring up the UK to say the US should be like this country. I mentioned it as evidence that a (relatively) unarmed populace would not be at the mercy of armed bad guys. I think it's fair to use evidence from the UK in this argument - especially when it is directly relevant. I am not attempting to say (and never did say) the US should be like the UK. So I don't appreciate the implication that I did.

[Intuition Ale Works]

Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.

See where that gets us.

[Ocklawaha]

During the 2011 year in America:

323 Deaths by Assault Rifles.
496 Killings by Hammers.
650 Killings by Knives.
12,000 by Drunk Drivers.
195,000 By Medical Malpractice.

Seems like there is another solution in these numbers:

Close the loopholes, no more home brewing will be allowed.

Register all alcohol purchases, and sales by state licensed package stores.

Maximum of 10 drinks per container.

No high powered drinks, everything over 2% will be illegal.

Once the current stocks are depleted, we will have completely shutdown the 12,000 drunk driving deaths. 

[BridgeTroll]

Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.

See where that gets us.

I could get behind the Universal background check... depending on how it is implemented.  As it stands now... if I wish to sell a gun, I find a buyer, we agree on a price... and the deal is done.  With the universal background check... the potential buyer would have to go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork, pay the small fee, and is presented a certificate that must be presented to me (the seller) upon purchase.  It would add a level of government bureaucracy and interference... but would essentially be the same process as buying a gun through a certified dealer/gunshop.

Will this stop the buying and selling of arms without the check?  For people with criminal records... no.  What it will do is give police and other authorities another tool to deny firearms to those who are proven to be unreliable.  Stings and undercover sellers can be set up... luring those who are trying to buy a weapon "under the table".  This process also protects the seller... who at the moment... might unknowingly sell to someone who should not have a weapon.

[Pinky]

Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.

See where that gets us.

I could get behind the Universal background check... depending on how it is implemented.  As it stands now... if I wish to sell a gun, I find a buyer, we agree on a price... and the deal is done.  With the universal background check... the potential buyer would have to go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork, pay the small fee, and is presented a certificate that must be presented to me (the seller) upon purchase.  It would add a level of government bureaucracy and interference... but would essentially be the same process as buying a gun through a certified dealer/gunshop.

Will this stop the buying and selling of arms without the check?  For people with criminal records... no.  What it will do is give police and other authorities another tool to deny firearms to those who are proven to be unreliable.  Stings and undercover sellers can be set up... luring those who are trying to buy a weapon "under the table".  This process also protects the seller... who at the moment... might unknowingly sell to someone who should not have a weapon.

I agree that the Gun Show/secondary market problem needs to be addressed, as its one of the primary ways that "bad guys" obtain guns.  Secondary market transactions should be subjected to the same background checks as new gun sales.  I'd also like to see a requirement that all secondary market transactions be facilitated by a licensed dealer at their business location.  As a gun owner I know I'd feel a lot more comfortable having that transaction take place in a gun shop instead of my living room, both for my security as well as the assurance that I'm not unwittingly transferring a firearm to a "bad guy". 

I also think that we should institute tough penalties for legal gun owners who fail to secure their firearms in a gun safe when they're not in use..  There are huge numbers of firearms stolen during home burglaries.  In my opinion anyone who reports a burglary in which unsecured firearms are stolen should face prosecution.

I also support attaching very stiff penalties to those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime.  Long prison sentences with no chance of parole will deter some, and remove those who are not deterred from our society. 

[Adam W]

Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.

See where that gets us.

I could get behind the Universal background check... depending on how it is implemented.  As it stands now... if I wish to sell a gun, I find a buyer, we agree on a price... and the deal is done.  With the universal background check... the potential buyer would have to go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork, pay the small fee, and is presented a certificate that must be presented to me (the seller) upon purchase.  It would add a level of government bureaucracy and interference... but would essentially be the same process as buying a gun through a certified dealer/gunshop.

Will this stop the buying and selling of arms without the check?  For people with criminal records... no.  What it will do is give police and other authorities another tool to deny firearms to those who are proven to be unreliable.  Stings and undercover sellers can be set up... luring those who are trying to buy a weapon "under the table".  This process also protects the seller... who at the moment... might unknowingly sell to someone who should not have a weapon.

I agree that the Gun Show/secondary market problem needs to be addressed, as its one of the primary ways that "bad guys" obtain guns.  Secondary market transactions should be subjected to the same background checks as new gun sales.  I'd also like to see a requirement that all secondary market transactions be facilitated by a licensed dealer at their business location.  As a gun owner I know I'd feel a lot more comfortable having that transaction take place in a gun shop instead of my living room, both for my security as well as the assurance that I'm not unwittingly transferring a firearm to a "bad guy". 

I also think that we should institute tough penalties for legal gun owners who fail to secure their firearms in a gun safe when they're not in use..  There are huge numbers of firearms stolen during home burglaries.  In my opinion anyone who reports a burglary in which unsecured firearms are stolen should face prosecution.

I also support attaching very stiff penalties to those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime.  Long prison sentences with no chance of parole will deter some, and remove those who are not deterred from our society.

Your posts (both BT's and yours) remind me of this guy's blog entry:

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html

He proposes some interesting solutions to keeping guns out of criminal hands (in the hyperlinks). I don't know how many you guys will agree with - I understand a lot of gun owners may feel some of them go way too far. Others may feel they don't adequately address the problems.

I think Norway has tough laws on gun storage. I agree with that general idea. It obviously has two benefits - it can possibly reduce the likelihood of a gun being stolen and it can also reduce the likelihood of an accidental shooting. Of course, the most oft-quoted disadvantage is the difficulty it creates for the gun owner to get to his/her gun in a time of need.

[Pinky]

Your posts (both BT's and yours) remind me of this guy's blog entry:

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html

He proposes some interesting solutions to keeping guns out of criminal hands (in the hyperlinks). I don't know how many you guys will agree with - I understand a lot of gun owners may feel some of them go way too far. Others may feel they don't adequately address the problems.

I think Norway has tough laws on gun storage. I agree with that general idea. It obviously has two benefits - it can possibly reduce the likelihood of a gun being stolen and it can also reduce the likelihood of an accidental shooting. Of course, the most oft-quoted disadvantage is the difficulty it creates for the gun owner to get to his/her gun in a time of need.

I'd have no problem with most of what the above blog is suggesting, although #4 seems to be a bit intrusive.  I would think that most people who might possibly "go off" would have displayed that tendency already, and consequently would not pass the required background check.  The same holds true for those with drug problems. 

With regard to securing stored firearms, and it's possible effect on access to those firearms in time of need, I can only offer my own experience.  I am a Concealed Weapons Permit holder, and always carry when out in public, with the exception of prohibited locations such as bars, airports, government facilities and such, at which time I secure my firearm in a locked compartment in my locked vehicle.  When at home I usually keep one firearm (whichever I've been carrying)  in my briefcase, and overnight it stays in a touch-sensor lockbox designed for fast access that is very close to my bed thats at hand should a need arise.  All the rest of my firearms stay in my gun safe at all times.  I might add that the law already requires such measures even though many owners don't take it seriously, hence my above suggestion that stiff penalties be put in place to discourage that sort of irresponsibility.

[Bewler]

^^^I'm being serious, answer the question. What's your stance on guns in America? Do you just wanna do away with them all? Because it sounds like it.

No, just any kind of automatic weapon, uzis, certain shotguns and possibly even handguns. Thank you for bringing this up because this is what I feel needs to be heavily debated and considered. Here’s the thing, I totally understand wanting to feel like you can defend your home against an armed assailant, but you can’t you still do that with a rifle? Especially you’re well trained with it? We need to acknowledge and accept a line in the sand for what constitutes as excessive fire power/deadliness. There’s a reason civilians aren’t allowed to carry machine guns, M16s, grenade launchers, or flame throwers. They are simply too powerful. They are more likely to cause larger scale devastation in the event of an incident or a tragic accident than what would happen with a knife or a bat. To think otherwise would be inane. I mean why stop there? How about a mini-nuke in every house? You know… for protection. After all, nukes don’t kill people, loose hands on the detonate button kills people.

Now I’m sure a ban on hand guns would be met with huge opposition. So why do I include it on the list? The same reason sawed off shotguns are already illegal. Concealment. And Pinky I just read your post so maybe you can answer this question for me. Why do you need to conceal your weapon if it’s for defense?

Serious, non-trolling question for the anti-gun crowd:

One of the main reasons that the 2nd Amendment was put into place was to protect U.S. citizens from threats, both outside and in. Don't you feel that an armed citizenry is an important deterrent to government tyranny, societal anarchy, and foreign invasion? I'm not the type to think that we're going to suddenly slip into totalitarianism next week, but anyone with a history book would agree that the precedent is certainly there that, whether now or a hundred years from now, we're going to be faced by such a situation eventually. A population that can defend itself and potentially overthrow its government if necessary seems like a genuinely valuable check and balance to maintain. Does a neutered population armed with only an internet petition instill that same fear?

Do you really think armed civilians currently have any chance against the most powerful military in the world? Even if every one of us were armed (in this entirely unlikely event) we would stand absolutely no chance against tanks, jets, drones and guided missiles.

What about foreign invasion? I'm certainly not suggesting that we're going to find ourselves in a Red Dawn situation in the next decade, but to discount the possibility entirely seems like a dangerous and naive thing to do. For example, when asked in the 1940s why Japan didn't stage a ground invasion of the U.S., Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto allegedly said "You cannot invade the mainland United States because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Estimates put the number of U.S. gun holders at approximately 100 million. Don't you think that's a) a valuable deterrent against invasion, and b) a valuable defense force if an invasion were to occur? Again, it's easy to say "that's not going to happen" today, but with North Korea beating its goofy war drums, constant economic tension with China, etc., it's impossible and reckless to discount the long-term possibility entirely.

Ok but do we really need to walk around armed all the time waiting for this to happen? In the event that this occurs, THEN we can start handing out the guns and forming militias.