gun nutters . . . . scary stuff!

[WelshBloke]

It's hard to conceive of a realistic scenario where it would, however a truth is that all civilizations fall, occasionally rapidly, and almost always with dire consequences. Chance favors the prepared mind, but Darwin favors those best equipped. That's not a statement that we adopt a universal attitude of survivalism, but nevertheless assuming a timeless and perpetually beneficent society isn't realistic. I'd point out the problems associated with a defenseless GB WWII, who like most of Europe was with few exceptions completely unable to offer a substantial resistance. An appeal to "surely that's impossible in our enlightened age" could be made, but that thinking is pride and has led to the fall of a great many.

The best resistance against an invasion by a superior force (remember if youve been invaded the guys who have invaded have just beaten your armed forces with all their military hardware), would not be to start to have gun battles with the invading force.

 

[WelshBloke]

... The revolution wouldn't have to engage tanks and fighters so long as they deprive them of fuel, and a few thousand angry men/women with guns, properly organized, could very well do that to a military base.

Hasn't worked out like that for a bunch of angry Afghanistanis (thankfully).

 

[irishScott]

The best resistance against an invasion by a superior force (remember if youve been invaded the guys who have invaded have just beaten your armed forces with all their military hardware), would not be to start to have gun battles with the invading force.

We're talking about the United Sates. That's 3,537,441 square miles. You're telling me 3,537,441 square miles of an angry, armed populace wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion? Imagine the situation in Afghanistan multiplied by 14.

For reference, the UK is 88,744 square miles.

 

[Lemon law]

Do you realize the U.S. has the largest standing army in the world, except for maybe china?

Once a nations military is defeated, the war would be pretty much over.

In the case of the U.S., after the military is defeated, the invaders would have to defeat millions of armed citizens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are you kidding, do you really think some citizens militia armed with with some assault rifles, pistols, and shot guns would stand a chance against the US military armed with 155 MM
howitzers, tanks, and heavy machine guns. And I failed to mention our air force armed with smart bombs and drones carrying missiles.

TexasHiker, you have a fine fantasy and little else.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Hasn't worked out like that for a bunch of angry Afghanistanis (thankfully).

I won't describe a crowd that is as likely to turn against foreign invaders as likely as themselves as "organized".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The best resistance against an invasion by a superior force (remember if youve been invaded the guys who have invaded have just beaten your armed forces with all their military hardware), would not be to start to have gun battles with the invading force.

When did I suggest that? Serious question- what do you know of how such operations would work? I don't want to get into unnecessary detail. In any case an armed resistance is superior to an unarmed one. I doubt you could find a single example of the reverse.

 

[irishScott]

Hasn't worked out like that for a bunch of angry Afghanistanis (thankfully).

Because the bases in Afghanistan operate on tightly controlled supply lines set up and defended by the concentrated might of the US military. The military bases in the US are largely dependent on civilian infrastructure. Many are directly enmeshed in our cities. Blowing up/blocking a road is a lot easier than fighting for military supremacy of a remote valley. Even the US military, assuming they were 100% loyal to the government (doubtful in such a case), could not secure all or even most critical civilian infrastructure in the continental US.

 

[WelshBloke]

We're talking about the United Sates. That's 3,537,441 square miles. You're telling me 3,537,441 square miles of an angry, armed populace wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion? Imagine the situation in Afghanistan multiplied by 14.

For reference, the UK is 88,744 square miles.

Yeah but really, in the wildly unlikely event that some country invades the US, I doubt that force is going to give a shit if theres a bunch of angry armed citizens in bumfuck, Texas (no disrespect to bumfuck, Texas implied). They are going to smash your military and civil systems and then GTFO.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hasn't worked out like that for a bunch of angry Afghanistanis (thankfully).

It did when they were dedicated, well armed and lead against the USSR, and if you think the difference was in Soviet compassion you would be mistaken. It is instead due to a simple and significant fact. We're disliked, the Soviets were universally despised.

 

[WelshBloke]

When did I suggest that? Serious question- what do you know of how such operations would work? I don't want to get into unnecessary detail. In any case an armed resistance is superior to an unarmed one. I doubt you could find a single example of the reverse.

Having some guns would obviously help, but disrupting supply lines, blowing up depots and generally making holding on to an uncooperative country more of a pain in the arse than withdrawing without provoking a massive military response would work better.

 

[irishScott]

Yeah but really, in the wildly unlikely event that some country invades the US, I doubt that force is going to give a shit if theres a bunch of angry armed citizens in bumfuck, Texas (no disrespect to bumfuck, Texas implied). They are going to smash your military and civil systems and then GTFO.

Perhaps. Depends on the motive of the hypothetical invader, which could be anything.

If they care about occupying anything, even for a short time, with an armed populace they'd have to seriously worry about armed resistance.

 

[WelshBloke]

It did when they were dedicated, well armed and lead against the USSR, and if you think the difference was in Soviet compassion you would be mistaken. It is instead due to a simple and significant fact. We're disliked, the Soviets were universally despised.

No whats worked for the Afganistanis is that its more of a pain in the arse for us to stay than leave.

The IEDs and cost of staying there is more of a deterrent to us than the fact that every mud hut has an AK47 on the mantlepiece. We can deal with the fact that they are armed .

 

[Lithium381]

So #1 for personal defense against criminals we should be allowed to carry, and #2 for protection against the government.

As for gun control and keeping them out of the hands of criminals. . . . that's going to be very dificult as the criminals don't go down to the store and buy them and present an ID most of the time. In california I've got a 10 day waiting period while they do a background check on me and also to serve as a "cool down" period. I geuss that makes sense if i didn't already own 7 guns. . .

The amount of guns isn't quite as helpful without organization. i would take an orgranized 20-man team vs a 100-man team of individuals anyday . . . look at Che for inspiration

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No whats worked for the Afganistanis is that its more of a pain in the arse for us to stay than leave.

The IEDs and cost of staying there is more of a deterrent to us than the fact that every mud hut has an AK47 on the mantlepiece. We can deal with the fact that they are armed .

Yet the USSR could not. You do not fully appreciate the difference between thousands working to get us out by any means and a number a whole magnitude or more greater filled with genuine hatred. You seem to dismiss one means of resistance while embracing the other as being THE mode. That would be a serious mistake since tactics rely on a variety of means and methods, and the ability to provide cover fire cannot be underestimated.

As far as the US itself, we'd be talking millions working to make occupation a hopeless task. The goal is not to force the opposition out, but to create a situation so unpalatable that they consider it in their own best interest. This is how it has always been.

Something altogether different and that's the perception of those who live in the UK, where being able to defend oneself and family is, well, frowned upon, is that the presence of weapons is somehow correlated to murder by firearm. That most definitely not the case.

I lived in Vermont for a few years. Several of us went on a frozen lake and shot some targets and cans. I had perhaps a half dozen handguns on my person, as did the others. We went into a diner and I explained to the waitress that we had a great many weapons under our coats (at least two dozen) and we didn't want to leave them unattended in the car. Her response was amusing in that she had the attitude of "why on earth should I care?"

I'm sure in your land this would have been front page news with details of us dangerous maniacs and would be talk show fodder. Nope. Business as usual.

Get this- none of us had a permit. Why? Because Vermont has no concealed carry laws. No, not that it's not permitted, but there are literally no laws addressing the issue at all. It has in fact the most permissive handgun environment of any state.

Now HAL might assume that access equals violence, however the firearm murder rate is the lowest of all 50 states, indeed, lower than England/Wales.

Why is this? Because it's considered wrong to shoot people in Vermont.

 

[soulcougher73]

I haven't really got any strong feelings one way or the other with respect to gun control but do you really believe in the idea in that poster?

At which point do you think the populace will rise up against the government?

And given that lots of people will probably be supporting the government you'd just end up with a civil war with both sides armed so I'm not seeing the advantage.

You want both sides armed. That is the point. IF only the gov has weapons via military they can do whatever they want to the population at gun point.

 

[soulcougher73]

Im tired of hearing about gun violence in this country. I don't care who LEGALLY has a permit. Melt the fucking things down and turn them into something that doesn't kill other people.

May as well meltdown knives, bats, crowbars, cars, my fists, belts, spoons, forks, bottles, rocks...

You getting the picture yet? Guns dont kill people by themselves, people kill people. Without guns people would just use the next best thing available to them.

 

[Rainsford]

Well thats with everything. Thus people folding and buying into it is not what we need.

The Titanic killed 100's of people and I didn't see them banning boats. It's a grand blame game that is eroding every little freedom we have left. Soon you won't be able to wipe your ass w/o a signed release.

Nobody banned boats, but pretty much everyone responded with ideas to try to make ships safer and add regulations to make sure a disaster didn't happen again if it could be at all avoided.

What people didn't do is say that sailing is just dangerous and then strongly argue against doing anything remotely differently with future ships or voyages and claiming everyone who argued otherwise hates freedom. Does any of that sound familiar?

There seem to be two main reactions after a shooting like this. On one hand you have the people who argue that this is a good example of why we need stricter gun control to keep weapons out of the hands of people who would do things like this. And on the other hand you have people basically arguing that nothing is wrong, everything is working as intended and anyone who thinks we need to do something different is a horrible, misguided person who's trying to destroy freedom.

Now I think the gun control arguments may be oversimplifying things, but the pro-gun arguments are just stupid. Surely we can all agree that someone using their legally purchased weapons to shoot up a theater full of innocent people probably isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment. You don't think gun control is the answer, fine, but could the NRA folks respond like they actually care about the problem instead of acting like they just view it as an annoyingly inconvenient gun control argument?

Or in other words, I feel like I'd like the gun crowd a lot more if theater shootings elicited more responses like "that's horrible, I wonder what we can do" and less "you better not use this an an excuse to take my guns".

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

^ Now there's some damn truth.

 

[Rainsford]

May as well meltdown knives, bats, crowbars, cars, my fists, belts, spoons, forks, bottles, rocks...

You getting the picture yet? Guns dont kill people by themselves, people kill people. Without guns people would just use the next best thing available to them.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean using the "next best thing" would be just as effective. If you could kill people just as easily with knives, bats, crowbards, etc, the NRA wouldn't be so relentless in arguing for gun ownership. It's hard to reconcile "no need to ban guns since other things are dangerous" with "we all need guns because it's the only way we can defend ourselves". And nobody is going to kill a theater full of people with a bat...

Again, this isn't an argument to ban guns, but that doesn't mean guns shouldn't be considered incredibly dangerous items...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Rainsford the reason that you get a defensive response is because although the perp is about as bad an example of "this would have been avoided with gun control or confiscation." as could be made the anti gun crowd will take any tragedy as an opportunity. One has only to read editorials already. I have not seen people argue that these murders are of no consequence, but we've seen specious arguments before.

 

[HAL9000]

Do you realize the U.S. has the largest standing army in the world, except for maybe china?

Once a nations military is defeated, the war would be pretty much over.

In the case of the U.S., after the military is defeated, the invaders would have to defeat millions of armed citizens.

That's true! If only you had the largest standing army in the world...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I agree. Using these types of events as a compelling event for gun control is pointless.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

WelshBloke, you're looking at it wrong. It's not about the citizens "rising up" it's about resisting til the government gives up.

 

[marvdmartian]

America should have banned guns a long time ago.

While we're at it, let's ban alcohol and automobiles. People drink and drive, so they both must be to blame, right? Why stop there? Let's just pass a plethora of nanny state laws, so we can all just sit on our asses, twiddling our thumbs, but being ultra-safe about doing that.....because if just ONE PERSON sprains a thumb, Hal might want us to ban twiddling too!

The ONLY people who would be affected by a total ban of firearms in this country would be the legal owners.....who would then be wide open to being victims of violent crimes, because the bad guys, who would laugh at the new law (like they do every other one) would know it was safe to just walk in and take/do whatever they want.

 

[Rainsford]

Rainsford the reason that you get a defensive response is because although the perp is about as bad an example of "this would have been avoided with gun control or confiscation." as could be made the anti gun crowd will take any tragedy as an opportunity. One has only to read editorials already. I have not seen people argue that these murders are of no consequence, but we've seen specious arguments before.

I don't think people are arguing (or are thinking) that the murders are of no consequence, but when the responses from the pro-gun people are uniformly about concern for gun-control, it certainly seems like their priority isn't the people who were shot.

Part of my problem is that it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to use this situation as a way to discuss gun control. I can't think of a better anecdotal argument against gun control than someone using his legally purchased guns to shoot up a theater full of people. Obviously this has the same problem as any other anecdotal argument, but saying the incident has nothing at all to do with gun control sounds ridiculous.

I understand the defensive feelings, particularly because our culture as a whole is incredibly stupid when it comes to dealing with anecdotal arguments. But instead of conceding the point on this particular case and trying to win the larger argument, the pro-gun folks seem to feel pushed into not giving any ground whatsoever on anything and arguing the strange position that someone using legally owned guns to shoot a bunch of innocent people has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.