Sorry I stand corrected about the incarceration totals, although the United States does have the highest rates of imprisonment in the world, the actual totals are even greater than China which has over 5 times the population. The US total is not greater than the rest of the world combined although it accounts for a very large percentile of the total.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf

The total imprisoned throughout the world stands at 8.75 million imprisoned. The US accounts for over 2 million of that total figure. Roughly 1 in every 4 people imprisoned throughout the world is an American Citizen.

As the data is some 4-5 years old, the total percentage which would be US incarcerations compared to the overall world total has become even higher.

There has been a jump in the crime figures for violent crime, although according to the same figures provided by the Home Office the overall crime rate has remained steady and in some categories has fallen. A distinction between violent crime and other crimes is made within the UK. I would not describe it as a massive jump, but a problematic year on year increase and has been ongoing even prior to the changing of the concealed gun laws in 1996 when the Dunblane massacre occurred. There has been an attempt to massage the statistics regarding crime rates within the UK by the Government for political expediency. As I have already implied the violent crime rate does not correlate to gun ownership or lack there off within the UK. Gun crime is not really an issued when compared to the year or year rise in overall violent crime figures. The inequity that people feel throughout society whether it is in the UK or the US I believe is the major cause of violent crime. Perhaps Gun ownership in the US just amplifies these effects. Countries which have inclusive rather than exclusive societies have much lower rates of criminality. The inequities within UK society have matched the year on year increase in violent crime in the UK because UK governments has for the past few decades followed the US model of economic development. Within the UK, Scotland has a much more traditional PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. perspective than the rest of the UK. Of course, having a more PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. perspective on life does not make you less free, it just allows you feel less fear of the unknown.

Lawyers. In a whole lot of countries across the world when you commit a crime, you get put away and or severely punished. Here you get a slap on the wrist, get out and do it again. And again. And again. Some countries put you away for 20+ years for petty crimes. Most murderers dont even do that here.

A couple of astounding figures I heard.

The state of Michigan has as many armed citizens (based on the
number of hunting licenses sold) as the total of the worlds 7
largest standing armies.

The largest money making industry in Washington State (ahead of Boeing and Microsoft) is the hunting industry when you include
hotel, food, gear, etc. involved in the sport.

I'm sorry, but I would hazard that we are more inclusive. Our citizens have sent as many representatives that were born to poor and working class households as rich to Washington. As opposed to having a House of Lords, who I understand are still selected by their fellow members of the peerage rather than the common subject?

We've had territories and subjugated that natives and practiced slavery; that can be said for both countries, but we never did it across 24 timezones. Nor did we never really have colonies.

Or is there something you'd like just say openly about our country? You've done a lot of beating around the bush, and I don't mean the fellow in the White House.

Well, despite oft quoted Japanese Admiral, I think the main reason we haven't had a "successful" invasion is that we have Canada to the north of us and Mexico to the south neither of which is a particularly militaristic country and we have a couple thousand miles of open ocean to the east and west of us. It took a pretty impressive act of military planning to attack Pearl Harbor with anything approaching surprise and that attack just destroyed a lot of ships and facilities. There was no effort to take and hold Hawaii. To land a several million man invasion force on the Californian or Carolina coast and keep the supply lines open is somewhere in the realm of the nonsensical. Even the British as a superpower couldn't successfully maintain an occupying army in 1776 or and invading army in 1812. The strategic and tactical considerations of invading the United States are insurmountable. You could of course land in South America and march up through the rain forest, but that presents its own equally difficult problems. Personally owned firearms don't even begin to factor into the equation.

The forces that the second amendment protects our freedom against is our government and our fellow citizens, not a foreign power.

And yet we managed to do just that to Europe and the Pacific islands during WWII. Admittedly we had the England, Australia, and Hawaii for staging areas but that was only because we could keep the supplies coming in spite of the U-boats and Japanese Navy. If it hadn't been for that we would have had to start from here.

Since we want to help them establish a stable, defensable government designed by Iraqis and get out, I'd have to say they are all in it for personal gain.

Having staging areas is a great advantage. The countries we were fighting were also engaged in two fronted wars, the Germans had us and the Russians, the Japanese had us and the Chinese. In the European theater we lost a vast number of merchant marines while simultaneously working to destroy the U-boat threat. We did have great Britain as a staging area, we also invaded North Africa first and used that as another front to attack Italy. In the Pacific, we mainly fought a holding war until the war in Europe was won. Thus we weren't actively engaged in a two front war the same way either as Germany or Japan. Then we island hopped using each conquered island as a staging area to attack the next island until we could fire bomb and later nuclear bomb Japan itself. Japan also failed to destroy the aircraft carriers of the Pacific fleet which allowed us to provide air support to the troops. We didn't invade Japan until they had surrendered. Against the US you could try to use Cuba as a staging area, but you have to go past Costa Rica and the US Virgin Islands, both of which would make fine air force bases to attack passing ships. Once you got here, the United States is a much larger land mass. Unlike Italy, France, and the rest of the European countries, Florida, South Carolina, or California wouldn't turn into an invading forces allies.

Anyway, arm chair strategies aside, I was just trying to make the point that personally owned firearms are a much, much smaller factor in a decision to invade the United States then say, geography.

1. 90% of law-abiding citizens would comply with the law.
2. 0.1% of criminals would comply with the law.
3. In most of the large metropolitan areas of the country crime would show only a modest increase
3. Crime would measurably increase in all other areas.
4. Violent crimes specifically involving knives would skyrocket across the country while those involving guns would remain constant.
5. There would be calls for banning sharp pointy-tipped knives.
6. Sharp, pointy-tipped knives would be banned.
7. 90% of law-abiding citizens would turn in their knives.
8. 0.1% of criminals would comply with the law.
9. The political party currently controlling Congress and the Presidency (pick one) would establish laws that prohibit criticizing the government.
10. Violent crimes involving knives and guns would remain constant, while those involving baseball bats would skyrocket.
11. There would be calls for banning baseball bats.
12. Baseball bats (and therefore baseball) would be banned.(No big deal. After all, soccor is just so much more egalitarian, isn't it?)
13. While they were at it, football and boxing would be banned as well (too violent.)
14. The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would be scrapped in favor of a new UN Declaration on Group Rights. After all, who needs individual rights? Only group rights matter in the new Utopia.
15. Violent crimes specifically involving frying pans would skyrocket......