Er.  No it isn't.  We just have an adult way of dealing with it.   Confronting it upfront by people being against it.

I think you are kidding yourselves if you think there is a realistic scenario of  any country invading the US and staying there the long term.

And if you really think the second amendment is what prevents this , you're crazy enough that you probably shouldn't own a gun anyway...

Not only that, throw in the fact that a lot of the gun owners are ex-military..

Go read up on the Chechen War, when Russia attacked Grozny. The Chechens had no armor, no artillery, and no airforce. Despite that, what essentially was militia (including a nice dose of Afghanistan war veterans) held off arguably the 2nd best army in the world for months. The only thing that ended the war was essentially Russia telling the Chechens they were going to flatten the capital with cluster bombs, removing the city from the face of the Earth.

It was so bad during the 1st month of the Russian attack that the Chechens literally destroyed 1/10th of every T-82 tank committed to the fight - and the T-82 was the best Russian tank at the time (the same thing they made to spearhead an attack against NATO in the 80s). What they did resulted in a complete overhaul of Russian doctrine and huge modifications to their armor programs, as militia destroyed huge swaths of their mechanized forces.

If you read what I said earlier, there is a formula to solve the problems that America has. We have many areas that are incredibly low on crime, and is easily around very good European standards.

Do you know what the lowest crime states in the US all have in common?

Graduation rates.

The top 3 states in the US for murders and crime are the top 3 states in regards to graduation rates. Fleshing the rest of the top 10, its almost an identical match. As I said elsewhere, murders in America drop 50% among whites and 90% among blacks when they finish just 1 year of college education (after 1 year, there is almost no difference, regardless of race).

So what'd the effect be if every state had a ~90% graduation rate? Crime would likely drop by 50% nationwide, and we'd be lower than the UK in terms of crime.

America is violent because America is stupid. When you have a lot of people that can't get a good job and provide for their family, they turn to violence and crime. Was that the case with Mr. Lanza? Probably not. But it is the case for the vast majority of crimes. Even then, Mr. Lanza (as well as any mass shooter) is usually marginalized in society, which makes little difference between them and those that don't graduate and turn to crime.

And the award for "Not being able to read an entire post" goes to....

Oh dear lord, you are aware that there are more people who own and have access to firearms in Canada then there are that are registered right? Now I am looking for a more up to date link to provide but I did manage to find an article that "sourced" a United Nations study which found that 7 million people owned fire arms with an estimate of 21 million firearms in Canada (and that was in the 90's). Now, considering that most households have more than 1 person living in it, whether it is a couple or small family, that would give access to a substantial amount of more people then the figures would lead you to beleive.  I have no idea where the hell you grew up but "Everyone I know" at some point had their father take them out shooting or had praticed with a rifle (non license either) and when you go to more rural areas almost everyone you meet can shoot a gun or has several guns and a large family.

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/26-How-many-people-in-Canada-legally-own-firearms.html

Secondly, maybe you've been living in a bubble for the past decade or maybe you just didn't bother to study history but if we take a look at all the fancy equipment the western armies have had in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan,etc compared to what the people had......well,  if you don't believe that U.S or Canadian civilians would be able to stop our respective militaries then good sir you are sadly mistaken.

Furthermore, what you should have stated is a majority of Canadians in Southern Ontario and Quebec agree with you, not the rest of Canada (especially out west) as I shall use the Angus Read poll as an example to show that when it comes to hot topics like the abolishment of the long gun registry to banning guns, Canadians are split (sourced from a scientific poll, not the right wing Toronto Sun or Left Wing National Post)

"Views on a Complete Ban

Canadians are evenly divided on the possibility of implementing a complete ban on handguns.

Since August, the proportion of respondents who support a ban fell by five points to 44 per cent, while the proportion of Canadians who believe a ban would be unjustified increased by four points to reach 44 per cent. Majorities in every Western Canadian province believe a ban would be unjustified, while most Quebecers would agree to implement one.

The Registry

The Canadian Firearms Registry, also known as the long gun registry, requires the registration of all non-restricted firearms in Canada. More than a third of Canadians (38%, -5 since August) believe the registry has been unsuccessful in preventing crime in Canada, while three-in-ten (31%, +2) think it has had no effect on crime. Only 16 per cent of respondents (+3) believe the Canadian Firearms Registry has been successful.

Almost half of Canadians (46%, +2) call for the long gun registry to be scrapped—including large majorities in the Prairies (65%) and Alberta (69%). Two-in-five respondents (40%, +5) are opposed to this course of action, including 59 per cent of Quebecers.

While 44 per cent of Urban Canadians would scrap the long gun registry, the proportion jumps to 53 per cent among Rural Canadians. For the purpose of this analysis, Rural Canadians are defined as persons living outside centres with a population of 1,000 inhabitants, and outside areas with 400 persons per square kilometre."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/39504/almost_half_of_canadians_would_abolish_the_long_gun_registry/

I guess most Canadians do not agree with you.

Whenever you get the old chestnut of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", respond with this:

"Guns don't save people from gun violence, people save people from gun violence."

And if any American who likes guns tries to point to Finland, or Israel, or another country like that as "proof" that more guns make it better, just point to Australia - in many ways, Australian culture mirrors American culture. Indeed, prior to 1996, Australia's gun crime rate was very similar to America's gun crime rate. Then there was a gun massacre, the worst in history (at least at the time), and even the most conservative politicians decided that gun control was essential.

The prime minister at the time, who was a right-wing conservative leader, established a gun buyback scheme and laws to control gun violence. Since then, our gun violence has dropped dramatically, making us a country that sees far less gun crime than America. Here's a graph showing the change in firearm homicide rates (and non-firearm homicide rates, to show that that rate didn't increase to compensate):

havent read any comments but this shit is what is called a  drive by that happens in every inner city hood in america almost daily   talking bout this "mass shooting in pennsylvania of course"

I wish people would realize stricter gun control does not mean a ban on guns

And the debate continues. Also why do people from other countries feel the need to but into the United States policy on guns? I'm looking at you China.