God I hate the British

[Axios]

The UK also has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, so the population would be essentially defenseless if, for example, the government decided to engage in genocide. This is one area where I'm definitely thankful to be in the US.

Um sorry theymos. Little guns wont stop military from killing you... Just let me remind you of Soviets. Ukranians even had well armed militia, which got wiped out pretty quickly by NKVD. And that's back when the military didn't have the toys they have now.

[1714189788]

1714189788

[1714189788]

1714189788

[1714189788]

1714189788

[Third Way]

I'm ashamed of my nationality

You understand that #1 You didn't choose your nationality and that #2 you're not personally responsible for what your government did all those decades ago, right?

Don't feelbad for being born, white/celt/british w/e it's sad when I hear or read people saying those things like "I'm ashamed having been born X". You didn't choose to be born, count yourself lucky you where born in a great civilized country!

[Third Way]

The UK also has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, so the population would be essentially defenseless if, for example, the government decided to engage in genocide. This is one area where I'm definitely thankful to be in the US.

Um sorry theymos. Little guns wont stop military from killing you... Just let me remind you of Soviets. Ukranians even had well armed militia, which got wiped out pretty quickly by NKVD. And that's back when the military didn't have the toys they have now.

Ah yes, the old "civilians can't beat the army!" nonesense. Then why haven't the U.S. military forces and company not been able to declare an outright victory in Afghanistan and Iraq in decades? More so, Why couldn't the Russians outright defeat the chechen nationalists? And a more recent example, why is Assad having trouble with the rebels in his own home turf when he is deplying his airforce and mortars/missiles into civilian areas?

Civilians can defeat armies and have been doing so since 1776 and much much earlier. Even the Romans couldn't defeat the celts!

History proves you wrong, dead wrong.

[theymos]

Um sorry theymos. Little guns wont stop military from killing you... Just let me remind you of Soviets. Ukranians even had well armed militia, which got wiped out pretty quickly by NKVD. And that's back when the military didn't have the toys they have now.

Yeah, that happens sometimes, but having guns definitely makes it more difficult. The US's opposition in the middle east don't have modern weapons, but they've held on for years and cost the US a ridiculous amount of money and lives.

[Axios]

Ah yes, the old "civilians can't beat the army!" nonesense. Then why haven't the U.S. military forces and company not been able to declare an outright victory in Afghanistan and Iraq in decades? More so, Why couldn't the Russians outright defeat the chechen nationalists? And a more recent example, why is Assad having trouble with the rebels in his own home turf when he is deplying his airforce and mortars/missiles into civilian areas?

Civilians can defeat armies and have been doing so since 1776 and much much earlier. Even the Romans couldn't defeat the celts!

History proves you wrong, dead wrong.

Civilians? Uh they weren't civilians. UPA were very well organized

So russian didn't defeat cechens? I wonder where da fuck they are now? Mostly in Moscow? Since they got wiped out pretty much.
Assad has an army? Wow comparing soviets and Assad... Really?
Romans pwneds celts.. Ceasar conquered them. Celts were speaking latin afterwards..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_language#Language_death

Bam.


Make an intelligent statement, not a bunch of idiocy.

[wachtwoord]

Fuck England, but let's not say anything bad about Scotland.   

*snip*

The next companion is hotter.

[Axios]

Yeah, that happens sometimes, but having guns definitely makes it more difficult. The US's opposition in the middle east don't have modern weapons, but they've held on for years and cost the US a ridiculous amount of money and lives.

I don't know. Unless you can take a modern tank down, insurgence would be futile to a lot of people. How many tanks US lost in Iraq. Probably less than a dozen. US lost what ~4k? While everyone else in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dead?

When a normal american fattie on these forums would be faced with death, he would just piss in his own pants.

[Third Way]

Ah yes, the old "civilians can't beat the army!" nonesense. Then why haven't the U.S. military forces and company not been able to declare an outright victory in Afghanistan and Iraq in decades? More so, Why couldn't the Russians outright defeat the chechen nationalists? And a more recent example, why is Assad having trouble with the rebels in his own home turf when he is deplying his airforce and mortars/missiles into civilian areas?

Civilians can defeat armies and have been doing so since 1776 and much much earlier. Even the Romans couldn't defeat the celts!

History proves you wrong, dead wrong.

Civilians? Uh they weren't civilians. UPA were very well organized

So russian didn't defeat cechens? I wonder where da fuck they are now? Mostly in Moscow? Since they got wiped out pretty much.
Assad has an army? Wow comparing soviets and Assad... Really?
Romans pwneds celts.. Ceasar conquered them. Celts were speaking latin afterwards..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish_language#Language_death

Bam.


The Russians di dnot defeat the chechens,until today the russian government still sends millions in tribute to the chechens. Why would they if they "won"? They didn't.

Secondly, you conveniently ignored my 1776 comment about miliamen defeating a then most modern army a the time.

Just because you think "militiamen" cannot defeat an army, does not mean people should not have the right to hold weapons to protect themselves, their proterty and as a check to keep a government from turning tyranical.

And yes, Assad does have an army, it has been fighting thew rebels for over 2 years now, if he didn't have one, there wouldn't be fighting and mass casualties on both sides, though mostly civilians.


Make an intelligent statement, not a bunch of idiocy.

[malevolent]

About the first and last thing overseas people want from UK is an education degree. I say it's overrated though...you wouldn't imagine how easy it was to get in an UK university apart from Oxbridge, LSE, and Imperial.

Depends on Uni and the specific course but there's more than those three that are difficult to get in to. About top30 (depending on the course) may be difficult to get into.
For example in 2011 the acceptance rate for CompSci & Math related courses was 15% for Nottingham Uni (which scores around 20 in UK) and 21% for Cambridge Uni.

Well, based on my experience as a foreigner graduating from a college where students do their A-Levels and apply to UK en masse, the only requirement needed is the A-Level results. 3-4 A's including 1-2 A*'s will ensure your entrance to all universities in UK barring what I listed above. They don't really care about what you write in your personal statement, nor give a damn about your other abilities. Heck, even 1-2 B's coupled with other A's get you in pretty much easily. Compare this with the hassle and headache of applying to US universities, and you'll see the stark difference.

That's a bit of generalization because they do care about the personal statement and references, especially if there's many candidates per place but it might not be applicable to some of the lower ranked universities. Sometimes they will require taking additional tests related to the studies, e.g. LNAT for Law, BMAT for Medicine, STEP for Maths in Bristol, Bath, UCL, Warwick + the ones mentioned by you. If there isn't many applicants per place obviously they won't be so picky about their candidates. From what I saw, top US universities will generally care more about the extracurriculars than their UK counterparts, and getting in will also be harder (more applicants per place).
What is also worth noting is the fact that international students (ie. not only outside the UK but ouside the EU/EEA) get preferential treatment during admissions because the school charges them a hell of a lot higher tuition fees.

The UK also has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, so the population would be essentially defenseless if, for example, the government decided to engage in genocide. This is one area where I'm definitely thankful to be in the US.

Yup, that's true. It doesn't stop people from killing with screwdrivers even though carrying almost any sharp or bladed instrument without a good reason  in public (should be job-related, and in a car also counts as in public lol) can mean up to 4 years in jail.

So russian didn't defeat cechens? I wonder where da fuck they are now? Mostly in Moscow? Since they got wiped out pretty much.

The Russians allied with one group of Chechens (Akhmad Kadyrov), who abandoned the insurgency and joined the Russian forces. Chechnya today is still not a safe place where Kadyrov's reign of tortures, murders and Sharia law resembles the reign of Ivan the Terrible.

[Third Way]

Which is why I argue the Chechens where not defeated, but appeased.


Sadly the Russian taxpayer foots the bill that they may live in luxury.

[Axios]

Which is why I argue the Chechens where not defeated, but appeased.


Sadly the Russian taxpayer foots the bill that they may live in luxury.

Wow. You wouldn't *want* to be a checnen in Russia now.

* fix

[Frizz23]

The worst thing for me about being British is when I go abroad everyone blames me for colonialism.

That is quite understandable. "Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history ..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

[iCEBREAKER]

Um sorry theymos. Little guns wont stop military from killing you... Just let me remind you of Soviets. Ukranians even had well armed militia, which got wiped out pretty quickly by NKVD. And that's back when the military didn't have the toys they have now.

Fee-fi-fo-fum,
I hear the bleating of a sheeple man,
Be he live, or be he dead
Kings grind his bones to make their bread

WHAT GOOD IS A HANDGUN AGAINST AN ARMY?
http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this:

   

First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

    Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

    Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert.