Gun Control

[Koolman]

Gun control doesn't work, if it's about saving people.
You must then "control" knives, baseball bats, automobiles, doctors, wild animals, disgruntled spouses, greedy politicians etc.
Get the drift?
It's nothing new, guns don't kill people, people kill people. We're arguing about banning guns, why aren't we arguing about banning pharmaceuticals that kill millions of people every year?
The problem as I see it, is a survival one. Too many people competing for scarce resources, will eventually lead to aggression. This aggression can and does sometimes manifest itself in destruction of the competing party.
Human nature my friends, no different at all from most animals, this is what needs to be controlled.
I am a gun owner, have to be out here in rural Australia. I breed and raise horses, and wild dogs are a constant danger.
I find that most people are internet cowboys, but rarely have the experience of reality. To them this whole "gun control" issue is just an interesting you tube video.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, that is incorrect.  Gun violence is surpassing auto accidents this year.

Source?

---

Lotsa trolling going on in this thread, too. It's a shame, and an obvious attempt to shut down reasonable discussion.

[CapnAwesome]

Pretty rehashed points, but I'm going to specifically respond to #3

3. The government has weapons far beyond what any citizen can access legally. They also have trained forces who have killed and will kill again. Using your little AR 15 to stop a cruise missile aimed towards your head is completely futile.

I assume this is in response to people who say they need guns in case they have to fight the government. While I think there are flaws in that argument I also think that obviously an armed populace could overthrow the government, regardless of whether or not they have cruise missiles and tanks. People who say this need to think a little. The Afghans are only men with guns, and they've successfully fought the most powerful militaries in the world in the last 100 years. They are far less numerous and have less guns than Americans. The actual number of combat troops that the US has is pitifully low. Something along the lines of a few hundred thousand. Compare that to 100 million armed Americans and it doesn't matter how many cruise missiles they have, the US population could easily defeat the US military. I even suspect that an unarmed populace could probably overthrow the government if they had to, just given the numbers. So while I do understand many arguments for gun control, I find this particular one to be based on a false assumption.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Pretty rehashed points, but I'm going to specifically respond to #3

3. The government has weapons far beyond what any citizen can access legally. They also have trained forces who have killed and will kill again. Using your little AR 15 to stop a cruise missile aimed towards your head is completely futile.

I assume this is in response to people who say they need guns in case they have to fight the government. While I think there are flaws in that argument I also think that obviously an armed populace could overthrow the government, regardless of whether or not they have cruise missiles and tanks. People who say this need to think a little. The Afghans are only men with guns, and they've successfully fought the most powerful militaries in the world in the last 100 years. They are far less numerous and have less guns than Americans. The actual number of combat troops that the US has is pitifully low. Something along the lines of a few hundred thousand. Compare that to 100 million armed Americans and it doesn't matter how many cruise missiles they have, the US population could easily defeat the US military. I even suspect that an unarmed populace could probably overthrow the government if they had to, just given the numbers. So while I do understand many arguments for gun control, I find this particular one to be based on a false assumption.

The Afghans have a few things going for them that most insurgents don't. First, they live in a very mountainous country, which tends to negate some of the advantages a superpower brings to bear. Secondly, they have a homogeneous culture which gives them a natural base of support. Thirdly, when they fought the Brits, air mobility hadn't been invented, and when they fought the Russians, they had the aid of a superpower. Those conditions don't obtain in any hypothetical gun-owner rebellion I've seen. Would gun owners take aid from China or Russia? I hardly think so. Fourthly, while there may be millions of gun owners versus a few hundred thousand combat troops, the troops are trained, and in most cases combat-experienced, and certainly much more disciplined. When it comes to fighting power, the willingness to fight is a big part of the equation.

Such a revolt would certainly cause big problems, but unlike, say, the Revolutionary War, the citizen army would  not be facing an opponent resupplying from across the sea in the age of sail; they would have deep difficulties resupplying themselves as a government with tentacles in many IT systems froze their accounts, tracked their movements, and used satellite imagery to track the rebels down.

And in a civil war such as is the subject of fantasy by some extremist gun groups, how much support could the rebels count on? To an American population accustomed to leisure and easy credit, a roving band of armed militia would not be very popular, I don't think, and fetching the support of the citizenry would require educating them.

Good luck with that.

[Minimalist]

Compare that to 100 million armed Americans and it doesn't matter how many cruise missiles they have, the US population could easily defeat the US military.

"A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house" - Socrates

Besides, when the military overthrows the government the same racist shitheads with guns will be cheering them on.

[Crossless2.0]

Obviously, the nutty fantasy of an armed citizenry rising up against the U.S. military, if it came to pass, would be a sorry bloodbath, a farce, or both. But I must admit that I'd love to hear some Army officer explain to a newsman in terms reminiscent of Vietnam, "Well, we had to destroy Cleveland in order to save it."

[Minimalist]

I keep this handy for just these occasions when the gun nuts get carried away.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, they live in a very mountainous country, which tends to negate some of the advantages a superpower brings to bear. [quote]
-as do we...but not only mountainous, much more besides that.  Any piece of equipment you have will find it's failure range here in the US.  Something doesn't work -everywhere- (when it's not busy fucking up after having been built by the lowest bidder in the first place).  Only thing you can trust, in the end, is that the guy trying to use the equipment will find a way, hooah...but how much do you trust that now....and how much less in a civil conflict?[/size]




[quote]Secondly, they have a homogeneous culture which gives them a natural base of support.

-like "Murica!"?

Thirdly, when they fought the Brits, air mobility hadn't been invented, and when they fought the Russians, they had the aid of a superpower.

-and here recently, air mobility had been invented and insurgents -didn't have the aid of a superpower....but the results were the same.  Why, do you imagine?[/size]

Those conditions don't obtain in any hypothetical gun-owner rebellion I've seen. Would gun owners take aid from China or Russia? I hardly think so.

-I agree..."gun owners" may not....but revolutionaries /w guns -would..yes.  

Fourthly, while there may be millions of gun owners versus a few hundred thousand combat troops, the troops are trained, and in most cases combat-experienced, and certainly much more disciplined. When it comes to fighting power, the willingness to fight is a big part of the equation.

-I've seen the willingness to fight...the only reason soldiers have it at all...is because they join up with it - we all have it...it;s a ubiquitous human attribute.

Such a revolt would certainly cause big problems, but unlike, say, the Revolutionary War, the citizen army would  not be facing an opponent resupplying from across the sea in the age of sail; they would have deep difficulties resupplying themselves as a government with tentacles in many IT systems froze their accounts, tracked their movements, and used satellite imagery to track the rebels down.

-Resupply would be -more difficult- now than it was then, if the scale of conflict were similar.  Are you familiar with how dependent the military is upon civilian contractors? The gov can't even shut down the local crack dealers accounts because they can;t find them. Fun fact, btw, the american colonies were as dependant upon the brits for food and supplies as the british soldiers were. We had no credible ag until very, very recently. Resupply wasn;t really any concern for the british in that conflict, they operated with impunity on that front.

And in a civil war such as is the subject of fantasy by some extremist gun groups, how much support could the rebels count on? To an American population accustomed to leisure and easy credit, a roving band of armed militia would not be very popular, I don't think, and fetching the support of the citizenry would require educating them.

-That's what the oppressors always say.  They're too weak and coddled...they'll never be a credible threat.  Then, all of sudden..baskets full of heads.

Good luck with that.

-They'd need a hell of alot more than luck, granted.  lol.  The odds are always this way though, in this scenario.  

I don't think that my objections, btw, are an argument -against- gun control.  At all.  I just can't stand the myth of american might.  Those missiles aren;t that smart, the drones cant see quite as far as we say, the guns aren't as effective..the vehicles nowhere near as "indestructable".  The government isn't a monolithic block of faceless men in black suits, and they're hardly competent enough to pull of some nationwide account freeze without chopping their own nuts off.  I see this day in and day out here, people opining upon the incomptenece of both government and government officials....but as soon as someone says "revolt" all of a sudden they're ass-kicking machines!  I disagree.

I have to say though, that suppose all of that were true. The cruel boot of the supremely compertent american goiv could crush any armed rebellion by it;s citizenry. So what? The right to bear arms as conceived of as defense against tyranny is not a right to -win- that conflict. It's simply acknowledging that we have the right to -try......and that to say that we have that right (or that we justify recourse by those means...which we must...it was foundational), while our government removes even marginally (in your estimation) credible means, or the items in question, would be meaningless proclamations.

[CapnAwesome]

Pretty rehashed points, but I'm going to specifically respond to #3



I assume this is in response to people who say they need guns in case they have to fight the government. While I think there are flaws in that argument I also think that obviously an armed populace could overthrow the government, regardless of whether or not they have cruise missiles and tanks. People who say this need to think a little. The Afghans are only men with guns, and they've successfully fought the most powerful militaries in the world in the last 100 years. They are far less numerous and have less guns than Americans. The actual number of combat troops that the US has is pitifully low. Something along the lines of a few hundred thousand. Compare that to 100 million armed Americans and it doesn't matter how many cruise missiles they have, the US population could easily defeat the US military. I even suspect that an unarmed populace could probably overthrow the government if they had to, just given the numbers. So while I do understand many arguments for gun control, I find this particular one to be based on a false assumption.

The Afghans have a few things going for them that most insurgents don't. First, they live in a very mountainous country, which tends to negate some of the advantages a superpower brings to bear. Secondly, they have a homogeneous culture which gives them a natural base of support. Thirdly, when they fought the Brits, air mobility hadn't been invented, and when they fought the Russians, they had the aid of a superpower. Those conditions don't obtain in any hypothetical gun-owner rebellion I've seen. Would gun owners take aid from China or Russia? I hardly think so. Fourthly, while there may be millions of gun owners versus a few hundred thousand combat troops, the troops are trained, and in most cases combat-experienced, and certainly much more disciplined. When it comes to fighting power, the willingness to fight is a big part of the equation.

Such a revolt would certainly cause big problems, but unlike, say, the Revolutionary War, the citizen army would  not be facing an opponent resupplying from across the sea in the age of sail; they would have deep difficulties resupplying themselves as a government with tentacles in many IT systems froze their accounts, tracked their movements, and used satellite imagery to track the rebels down.

And in a civil war such as is the subject of fantasy by some extremist gun groups, how much support could the rebels count on? To an American population accustomed to leisure and easy credit, a roving band of armed militia would not be very popular, I don't think, and fetching the support of the citizenry would require educating them.

Good luck with that.

This is just hypothetically speaking, I'm not talking about some roving band of wackos from Michigan in modern times, but say a Christian-facist future government. Something worth fighting against by large numbers of people.  I don't think at all there should be armed revolt at all right now, but...The US is also a very unhospital country to fight in. That's part of the reason that the greatest nation to have existed up to that point in time (Great Britain) got thrown out by a relatively small force of Americans and French. That's on the east coast. The west coast is covered in forests and mountains and the main thing, our population is enormous compared to the size of our armed forces. In the early 20th century For all the talk about the invincibility of the US army, we really aren't that good. We lost in Vietnam and have struggled against measily forces in the middle east. I'm pretty unconvinced that 100 million Americans with guns is less formidable than the Afghanis.

[Minimalist]

Check out the 2d Amendment Thread.  'Murricans with guns mainly seem to shoot themselves or others by accident.

P.S.  Most of the gun nuts would be on the side of that Xtian-fascist government you mentioned.