I'm not following much of this illogic. Are people saying that because you can still buy fertilizer, kitchen knives and rent trucks then we should allow people to buy as many guns as they want? What for, so they can shoot at rampaging U-Hauls?
The assertion that Europe and Asia were saved because a large number of American civilians learned how to shoot as kids is the funniest line I've read this month (so far). As if American youth were the only ones who used firearms growing up. And what percentage of the enemy were shot by American riflemen anyway?
Besides that, the idea that Asia was saved is controversial at best. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos may have different views. Come to that, those Viet Cong were pretty good with weaponry, weren't they? They didn't learn to shoot in the Kentucky hills.
In general, I would say that this American-centric view of world affairs has more to do with Hollywood movies than history books. Go to libraries, forget Disney.
That a joint effort during the second world war, bolstered in very large measure by American involvement in both logistical and military support is uncontested. No one sane doubts it. The importance of the American contribution in WW1 is less than that. Let's not treat the two as equivalent.
American foreign forays since 1945 have been less than stellar, it seems to me. And things are not trending your way. Economic and population centres of influence are shifting elsewhere. Your own corporations are establishing themselves elsewhere (assuming it even makes sense to talk about multinational corporations as being part of one country). And with a man in office now who can't organize his own white house staff and departmental appointees, I suspect the rest of the world is not very impressed.
Allan made an unintentionally funny statement about how America may be getting tired of playing policeman in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No kidding. Do you view those interventions as successful? I doubt those countries do. And do you feel safer because of those involvements? Because it certainly doesn't appear that way to me. Your civilian population is heavily armed, you have the most number of people in prisons anywhere, hundreds of thousands of people working in security, and to listen to your public statements, you talk as if you were living in one of the most dangerous places on earth. Shouldn't crime be WAY down by now, and shouldn't you feel safe? Why don't you? To listen to your talk, you sound as if you're all living in Kabul.
If having a lot of armed civilians really did thwart crime, shouldn't there be ample evidence of that? At the very least, shouldn't things be trending in that direction?
I detect a note in your responses to comments. You seem to act as if we're making attacks on the USA and you continually respond defensively. No one is gloating here. I'm not. Your decline in some international areas are not a good thing for the world. You need new thinking because the world has changed, and I'm not detecting any. And I don't mean the contributors to this thread, since we all don't really matter anyway, I am talking about your political leadership. You should do something useful about it instead of wasting your time and energy trying to pass gun silencer legislation because the NRA is funding the retirements of some of your paid-for politicians. That kind of thing invites ridicule and deservedly so. For f**k's sake, do you REALLY think it's important that it be easier to buy firearm suppressors?
Rant over.
