Literally nothing in your post is even remotely correct.

Look at every single dictator in history. What was one of the first things they did to achieve absolute power? They banned guns. Hitler, Stalin, Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao Zedong, etc all banned guns so the people can't possibly fight back against their government. That is exactly why we have the second amendment. To fight government oppression.

And once again not a single sentence of your post is even remotely correct. You should really consider not talking about things you know nothing more about than what you got of an NRA bumper sticker. Too bad I'm not at a computer to show you exactly how wrong you are until you probably go silent like the others that tried to make equally terrible points.

You also make no counter arguments so why should I believe you?

While this argument sounds nice in theory, it really does not correspond with the evidence and research at hand. For one, the "[url=http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/]Stalin[/url] and [url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr]Hitler[/url] took the people's guns before commiting their massacres against a [url=http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119543/gun-control-and-the-holocaust/2]defenseless population[/url]" arguments that are often thrown around are [url=http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/]mostly incorrect.[/url] They did not simply take away the people's guns to commit their attrocities more easily, and there still existed militias and many armed civilians that unsurprisingly managed to do nothing to stop the regimes. Even more so, strong evidence suggests that especially in our more modern history, the existence of an armed population and presence of militias "[url=http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/]overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty[/url]". As should be pretty apparent from looking at the entire developed world outside of the US, there exists no correlation between (strict) gun control and the emergence of tyranny or dictatorships, whether [url=http://geopoliticsmadesuper.com/2015/09/02/the-geopolitical-argument-against-gun-ownership/]foreign or domestic.[/url] Secondly, it's extremely unlikely that a tyranny will emerge in the US in this day and age. The country has a longstanding history of military tradition and engrained patriotism. The US military is the people. Until the president and chiefs of staff can rely on a completely automatic robot army without morals or doubts, there is no way that your members of the army, navy and airforce would simply turn on the people that they are sworn to protect. They are not going to imprison, enslave or kill their own friends, family and community because they are ordered to do so. There exists a big difference between fighting a foreign enemy and going door to door in your own neighborhood to kill your fellow citizens because they don't agree with what your commander thinks. Additionally, we live in an incredibly global and international society. NATO, the UN and the entire developed world is not going to sit by idly and mind their own business when Obama decides to crown himself dictator for life by somehow completely [url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177599/-The-Fantasy-of-Government-Tyranny]ignoring the existing system of checks and balances[/url] and openly starts shooting political dissidents in the streets or FEMA death camps. Finally, even if such a tyranny would emerge in present day America, [url=http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2013/01/24/guns-and-the-false-threat-of-tyranny-in-america]it is very doubtful that the second amendment and privately owned guns would be in any way able to stop this[/url]. This is no warzone in a far away land where the united and unified natives use their unmatched knowledge of the terrain and guerilla tactics to fend off an overwhelming opponent. It would not, [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/]at all[/url], resemble the militias that fought for America's freedom a few centuries ago. Not only would a rebellion easily be [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/11/15/how-the-u-s-military-would-crush-a-tea-party-rebellion/]crushed[/url], but the illusion that the American people would unite to fight for freedom and liberty is really just [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/]a distant ideal.[/url] Much more likely would be that different groups with different interests would take up arms to push their own beliefs over those of anyone else. The idea that a heavily armed populace is the ultimate safeguard of a righteous and free America is not only [url=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/guns-and-preventing-tyranny/]extremely improbable[/url], but also [url=http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/gun-control-1]very dangerous.[/url] It only increases the probability that only those with the firepower will be the ones in control and that [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/19/by-ivan-perkins-armed-constitutionalism-why-guns-dont-actually-keep-us-safe-from-tyranny/]might will make right.[/url] Ultimately, it's not guns that kill or prevent dictatorships. [url=http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/09/guns-dont-kill-dictatorships-people-do/]It's the people who do.[/url]

Oh so you're saying you don't really know anything about the topic but you don't agree with my thoughts so I am wrong. Also I'm not a member of the NRA (nice stereotype). Instead of calling me stupid for not agreeing with your point of view (we can agree to disagree and that's fine, just don't be disagreeable) why don't you explain your point of view. This is supposed to be a sharing of ideas not a name calling match.

Do a little research into violent crime in America compared to violent crime in the UK. That's the official figures based on each countries own definition of violent crime. There's a dozen or so offences included in the UK figures that aren't included in the American figures. For example, the U.K. Statistics for violent crime include statutory rápe (consensual sex with someone under the legal age), whilst the US figures don't. I'd be interested to see how those figures stack up using the same data sets, but I've been unable to find the raw data for either country.

Sure thing bro. I know both countries have different definitions of violent crime but I'm just gonna go by what the stats say because well it's late where I am and I'm tired and don't feel like doing hours of research at 1am. As of 2010, as this is the most recent data that I found that compares both countries. Britain's crime rate is 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The United States is 466 per 100,000 people. Britain is actually the most violent country statistically speaking in Europe. Now i don't know the amount if you went by solely the us's definition or by the uk's definition but I think that both numbers should be around of what the 2010 data says.