🇳🇱
Picture of a #Dutch outfit during WWII... why am I not even surprised.
The Dutch couldnt be anymore Dutch if they tried!
@freemo The Dutch were absolutely not prepared for WWII. Shitty equipment, and not expecting to be invaded at all. We kinda expected a repeat of WWI.
@trinsec Thats what happens when as a nation you tend to be anti-gun, i finda would have expected the Dutch to have learned their lesson from WWII
@freemo Heh, way to go to compare a situation from 80 years ago with now. 😝
Besides, I do fully expect soldiers to be armed, jeez.
@trinsec The situations arent unrelated.. by not having armed civilians who knew how to use a gun when it came time for every civilian to fight there were neither the guns nor expiernce to to do it. This policy ultimately led to a complete inability to prevent nazi germany from taking over.
now, 80 years later that same formula is at play and should another hitler ever rise dutch will find themselves repeating history never having learned that lesson from WWII
This is Mur 
thats a naive view of guns. The vast majority of legitimate uses of guns doesnt result in any loss of human life. Most people most of the time, at least during peace time, use them either for sport, or to protect the animals on a farm, or a combination of both. The use of a gun to actually kill someone is such a small percentage of their use as to be almost insignificant in terms of percentages of when/how a gun is used.
As for not needing guns or needing wars, that is always the hope. Lets hope people who are armed only ever need it to shoot at targets and enjoy the sport.
However it is scary just how similar your wording is to the views after WWI when the people of europe felt they learned their lesson and through coalitions, rather than guns or armies, could solve their problems. A wonderful idea, and by all means peace should be the goal. But things often dont work out as planned, they didnt work out then, and chances are they wont work out again. And when the next world war does happen it will again be the people without the guns sent to the gas chambers.
Yes my example was of an eminent war.. do you know what percentage of soldiers in any war carry guns vs those carrying rocket launchers? a hint, the overwhelming majority. In a war situations the ones int he tanks and the rocket launchers are the specialists, not the common soldier, and certainly there is little need for such a group to be comprised of the common civilian.
@freemo
Not in USA mostly, though you can ask the people of the war torn countries. What's the problem with an American tank, a Chinese tank, a Russian tank.
@mur2501 Like i said in the right system and under the right conditions. It is legal in the USA and has never been a single incident. That doesnt mean it would work in other countries and under different conditions or regulations.
@freemo
You know conditions and regulations only work when all people respect and follow them.
@mur2501 There are a lot of americans who would have no problem not respecting or following the regulations around tanks.. yet somehow, not a single incident.
So yea, obviously the regulations need to be enforced, that is a given. But that doesnt mean an individual on a whim can violate them, its usually people in power enforcing it and ensuring they cant (hopefully).
@freemo
This just like saying you don't have any gun incidents.
But who trusts in the powerful?
@mur2501 having no incidents is pretty good evidence its safe.
@freemo
No incidents of?
@mur2501 Someone in the USA exercising their right to own a personal tank to kill someone.
I dont even think governments should have nukes. That has less to do with weapons ownership and more to do with weapons of mass destruction in general.
@freemo
Not killing, though can't say there are no incidents 
https://youtu.be/KpgkhngU8yE
Also there are not many personal tanks in USA to give any numbers
@mur2501 That has absolutely no relationship to legal ownership of tanks.. That was literally someone from the army who stole a tank from an army facility.. So if anything that proves my point rather than detracts from it, that the military in tank are a greater risk than the general population having legal access to them.
@freemo
Yayyy take away the tanks from the armies 😎
@mur2501 I never claimed all freedom is good, though im not sure id be opposed to personal ownership of tanks under the right system and conditions. I just dont see it as nearly as pressing or as having much of a defensible reason as there is with guns. But I dont see a huge problem with it if done properly. I dont trust most of our military to not be murderers and they seem to roll around in them so why not.
You can legally own a tank in the USA and I have yet to hear of a single incident where it has been a problem.