Gun Control - Page 3

Warborn · 2012-07-22, 11:58 PM

Switzerland is a socialist hellscape with the highest per capita wealth on the planet, so clearly American Exceptionalism precludes any sensible comparisons from being made between the US and the Swiss. That's why talking about their health care system, where every person is mandated to purchase health care coverage just like in dastardly Obamacare, is immediately followed by tales of what it's like to be a Swiss person living in the communist-nazi infested ruins of Switzerland. Clearly they require their assault rifles in order to fend off the roving bands of socialist bandits.

All funny business aside, the Swiss really are the wealthiest per capita and have a great, stable society. Crime doesn't flourish under such circumstances, unlike in the US where there exists a very large portion of very poor people. Crime and poverty are, after all, joined at the hip. The Swiss also have conscription and universal health care, two things that I imagine if the USA ever even got a whiff of being enacted legislatively there would be blood in the streets. In short, I don't think you can compare Americans to the Swiss when talking about gun politics.

Accuser · 2012-07-23, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

If my government needs to be overthrown, it will be done so with the aid of the military and police, at least in part. A revolution cannot succeed without support from the people who're packing the real heat.

Oh and that's absolutely true. I'm glad you recognize that a fraction of the 1%~ of any given country's population that is part of the military would be needed in order to conduct a proper revolution. However, I doubt you could expect the majority of that military to join in on the revolution. In which case, military defectors would need to rely on armed civilian forces to match up against the military which remains loyal to our hypothetical dictator. The assistance (overt or covert) of external forces would be beneficial to the resistance, but the more weapons and training the civilians already have, the better.

And I'm especially glad you brought the police into this, since nearly every weapon available to the police is also available to civilians in the U.S. From (effectively) fully automatic rifles to 50 caliber sniper rifles and combat shotguns.

Yes, modern militaries have the advantage of drones and tanks and APCs... but they have a profound numerical disadvantage compared to the population at large (which includes trained local police and military veterans). Just as a modern war cannot be won with air power alone, urban pacification cannot be accomplished with soldiers hiding in Green Zones and APCs. And after enough soldiers of the oppressive regime have their heads taken off by anonymous citizen-snipers, there will be no one left to enforce the will of the regime.

Warborn · 2012-07-23, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Yes, modern militaries have the advantage of drones and tanks and APCs... but they have a profound numerical disadvantage compared to the population at large (which includes trained local police and military veterans).

No. Not really. Uprisings don't involve 100% of the civilian population taking up arms and fighting to the death against the government forces. It's a minority of civilians who participate, and of those morale is bound to be highly variable.

Just look at the Arab Spring stuff for indication. The revolutions in Egypt and Syria are 100% dependent on the activity of the military for success. In Egypt's case, the anti-Mubarak people were praying daily that the military would remain impassive. And it did, so the civilian bloodshed was minimal and the revolution was mostly peaceful. In Syria, the military attacked the civilians. The civilians, meanwhile, didn't stand a chance. But, there have been many defections from the Syrian military, bringing with them tanks, mortars, RPGs, machine guns, and other military hardware. The ex-army fighters also currently comprise the bulk of the anti-government forces fighting to overthrow Assad's regime.

The point is that you aren't going to fight back with pistols and assault rifles. Even if your cause is really sympathetic and you have a horrible asshole like Assad running your nation for decades, you need military-grade hardware to beat the military. And that's assuming the military is relatively primitive like Syria's is. In the USA, where the military is highly advanced, you aren't going to do anything with pistols and assault rifles.

In fact, you'd do worse than nothing. You'd potentially do what the Egyptians would have done had they been armed. If the Egyptians had guns and even one asshole took a shot at Egyptian Army guys, it would have been over. The military would have slaughtered them. The revolution would have failed. If the US ever has some kind of successful revolution, it won't be an armed uprising where the civilians defeat the military. At best, it'd be like Egypt, where the government is overthrown with the military standing by but not interfering. At worse, it'd be like Syria, where the military kicks the shit out of the civilian populations, but large-scale military defections eventually turn the conflict into an ex-army vs army, with military-grade weapons and vehicles being used against each other.

Any fantasies about beating armored vehicles, or tanks, or attack helicopters, or soldiers with body armor and machine guns using pistols and assault rifles is retarded. It won't happen. It would in fact be counter-productive. If anything, it's a reason to limit the amount of guns people have, so that potential revolutions are as peaceful as possible.

Accuser · 2012-07-23, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

No. Not really. Uprisings don't involve 100% of the civilian population taking up arms and fighting to the death against the government forces. It's a minority of civilians who participate, and of those morale is bound to be highly variable.

So if it's 10% of the total population that are armed civilians, alongside 1% of the population that are military defectors against maybe 2% of the population that are military and loyal to the regime... somehow that makes the civilian fighters irrelevant?

Originally Posted by Warborn

In Syria, the military attacked the civilians. The civilians, meanwhile, didn't stand a chance. But, there have been many defections from the Syrian military, bringing with them tanks, mortars, RPGs, machine guns, and other military hardware. The ex-army fighters also currently comprise the bulk of the anti-government forces fighting to overthrow Assad's regime.

I'd love to see how you came to that conclusion. By 2012 numbers, Syria has a population of 20.8 million. They have a standing army of 220,000. That's slightly more than 1% of the population, or about 2.5% if you include reservists. So if a full HALF of Syria's military were to defect (and it hasn't) it would only take 1.5% of the civilian population taking up arms to comprise half of the resistance.

Assault rifles are effective in war, even if the trained people holding them aren't wearing uniforms. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to accept. It's not like a regime can maintain control by just driving tanks around and shooting randomly at different buildings. It's similarly asinine to think that resistance fighters would allow the regime to know who/where they are. And the more innocents the regime kills trying to pacify the resistance, the more citizens join the cause.

Baneblade · 2012-07-23, 08:14 AM

I think the assumption that the American military will obey orders to combat Americans is a little on the high side.

Figment · 2012-07-23, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

"There wasn't much of a Croatian Army. Some of these guys had carbines from the WW2. Some had shotguns," Jon Duncanson's reply to the patchwork of citizens that made up the resistance to the Serbian Army. It worked! A citizen sniper wins.

Yeah, there were no NATO forces required for Croatia and Bosnia to come out independent during the Yugoslavian independence wars. NATO did not make daily sorties with F-117s, F-16s and F-17s from bases in Italy to bomb Serbian tanks, infrastructure and governmental targets.

Slovenia had it easier, being further removed from Serbia. Montenegro and Kosovo gained independence thanks to international pressure. NOT because they personally beat the Serbian armies and militias.

In fact, you nicely ignore that Croatia's forces did not exist of pure civilians and you ignore that genocide on unarmed citizens of different ethnicity happened under militias from both sides a lot, whereas it hardly happened with official military forces. In fact, Serbia abused the militias for genocide, with the excuse they were "harder to control because they did what they pleased outside of our knowledge and orders" (uh huh) and the militias on either side, being non-regular armies lead by hateful individuals, never had ratified the Geneva convention.

PS: Baneblade: there are more violent murder spree incidents in Switzerland compared to the amount in nations with strict gun laws. So "pulling the Suiss card" doesn't really help. Geographically, socio-economically and demographically they're also not quite comparable. Still, the Suiss have stricter gun laws than Colorado.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-07-23, 08:44 AM

There have been a lot of rampage shootings in this country. I'm not aware of many, or any, that were stopped by a private citizen who was carrying a weapon. Also? The guy who shot up the Colorado theater was wearing a fuckton of body armor, so the fantasy that Grandpa packing a .38 special would have done jack shit to stop him is pure fantasy. To say nothing of the fact that the guy opened up his rampage with tear gas, so do you think a soccer mom with a Glock is going to do anything? She'd be lucky if she didn't hurt more people but by being an untrained, panicking citizen.

More guns won't solve anything any more than less guns. We need to face facts: the problem we have is inherent in our culture, education, and mental health infrastructure.

Figment · 2012-07-23, 08:49 AM

My gawd we use stats instead of ignoring them! Adversarial I say!

Accuser · 2012-07-23, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

The guy who shot up the Colorado theater was wearing a fuckton of body armor, so the fantasy that Grandpa packing a .38 special would have done jack shit to stop him is pure fantasy. To say nothing of the fact that the guy opened up his rampage with tear gas, so do you think a soccer mom with a Glock is going to do anything? She'd be lucky if she didn't hurt more people but by being an untrained, panicking citizen.

Without looking it up, just how much training do you think local police get in firearms use? I sincerely doubt the actual amount is as much as you're thinking off the top of your head. There's nothing magical about a police uniform that gives them superhuman aim or judgement. I intimately know quite a few police officers and can assure you that the vast majority of them have similar amounts of training as the average armed citizen.

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah, there were no NATO forces required for Croatia and Bosnia to come out independent during the Yugoslavian independence wars. NATO did not make daily sorties with F-117s, F-16s and F-17s from bases in Italy to bomb Serbian tanks, infrastructure and governmental targets.

And none of that would ever be sufficient to actually win a war. Armed civilians were required for success. Maybe if they brought their own guns and were "deputized" into the army at the last minute, would that make you happy? Does it make you feel better if everyone who has a gun wears a uniform?

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-07-23, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Without looking it up, just how much training do you think local police get in firearms use? I sincerely doubt the actual amount is as much as you're thinking off the top of your head. There's nothing magical about a police uniform that gives them superhuman aim or judgement. I intimately know quite a few police officers and can assure you that the vast majority of them have similar amounts of training as the average armed citizen.

Because marksmanship doesn't matter. The only weapons training worth a damn is knowing to stay calm and find cover; something police get trained on in abundance, whereas private citizens mostly do not. Most private citizens spend some time at the gun range, or learn how to clean a weapon and so forth. I'm not personally aware of anyone who goes to combat training classes or live-fire exercises.

Darkened theater, tear gas everywhere, unknown number of unknown assailants firing indiscriminately; if you think that you, moviegoer, are going to be able to tactically and effectively neutralize that situation, you're living in a fantasy world.

Firefly · 2012-07-23, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by BNuts

Best way to protect yourself.. Live in a safe neighborhood, and stay away from any area or situation where you would think you would need to carry a weapon of any sort.

I'm sure that worked for the wealthy family in a well-off suburban neighborhood in Connecticut. Now a grieving widower buries his wife and daughters. Good idea.

Originally Posted by Malorn

And if a few citizens had legal firearms in that theater we would be talking about how the right to carry saved lives. Instead, nobody was carrying and people in their infinite stupidity want to enact laws to keep it that way. It's madness.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHA... wait... let me catch my e-breath... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No. Allow me to clarify this for you. Confusing factors:
1) surprise assault by well-armed, well-equipped shooter in a dark, noisy theatre
2) smoke, CS gas (which is even worse), and darkness
3) screaming, frightened terrified civilians running every which way

I'll ignore the obvious monkeywrench in your discussion about a guy carrying a lot of heavy-hitting guns and wearing body armour. Good luck popping through that with your home-defense pistol. But that's all irrelevant and superfluous to the discussion, because I'm focussing strictly on the environment and conditions.

I'm not going to Monday Morning Quarterback this. Let's just add a fourth. A bunch of people in a panicked crowd, said crowd is running through a dark movie theatre where people think gunshots are part of the movie... now add fog or smoke or CS gas (which you then factor in the terror of feeling like your face is on fire)... so here we go, number four: any one of "duly armed citizens" could mistake another "duly armed citizen" for the real shooter, and we have a three- or four-way or ten-way or thirty-way firefight.

Let's recap: it's dark, it's noisy, you're in a Batman movie. A heavily-armed, heavily-armoured guy walks in and throws a teargas or smoke grenade (which isn't like your average fireworks smoke bomb). He immediately starts shooting, ultimately firing hundreds of rounds. Meanwhile, hundreds of people in narrow rows are pushing and shoving, falling over.

And you think adding more gunfire to that is going to make it okay? Sure, one of the "responsible gun owners" might get lucky and hit the guy in the gas mask. That's presuming they have the foresight and intelligence and calm to hit the right guy. But let me tell you something - this is based on ten years of active-duty Army service with combat deployments - if I'm in a movie theatre with my family and someone starts shooting after tossing CS, I'm not going to draw my sidearm. I'm going to protect my family by shielding them and getting them out of harm's way. You as a gun-wielder in that situation are just as much a threat to my family's safety as you are to every other pistol-wielding Rambo motherfucker. And I would bet money that adding more guns and more shooters to this scenario would have resulted in more innocent deaths. Because if I'm shooting and I don't know who's on my side, as a combat-trained soldier I will return fire at anything that shoots. Just think what a bunch of civilian pistol-carriers would be doing. None of you know each other. So none of you knows who's on who's side. Yeah, great fucking idea. Remind me never to go see a movie with you people.

You would have to be very well trained to keep your cool in this type of scenario. About 99.999999% of average-Joe civilians, even those with a handgun license, are not trained to deal with this. Oh sure you could be Billy Badass, going to the gun range every day, where a thousand rounds a month on a range makes you a crack shot. That's on a stationary noncombatant target in an optimal (and controlled) environment under nearly perfect conditions.

Armed civilians would have made this situation worse. Now if that movie theatre had been filled with SpecOps troops or Rangers, then yeah maybe. Consider this: that theatre had at least four American servicemen inside. Not a large amount of them, but there were sheepdogs in that theatre.

Originally Posted by Warborn

you need military-grade hardware to beat the military.

This.

Originally Posted by Accuser

Without looking it up, just how much training do you think local police get in firearms use? I sincerely doubt the actual amount is as much as you're thinking off the top of your head. There's nothing magical about a police uniform that gives them superhuman aim or judgement. I intimately know quite a few police officers and can assure you that the vast majority of them have similar amounts of training as the average armed citizen.

I once participated, as a "combatant", in a training exercise in which the Baltimore's SWAT team went head-to-head with a company of Army intel weenies using Simunitions.

The SWAT team was decimated.

We're not talking about infantry combat troops. We're talking about college boys and college girls with high IQs, average PT scores, average marksmanship awards, once a year CTT training, and the occasional field deployment *IF* they volunteer for it (and they only volunteer if the TDY and per diem is good), who spend the vast majority of their Army career in classrooms learning foreign languages or technical skills, then go on to a desk-job inside an air conditioned office building and then go home and play WoW. Among this company were no more than six people with any sort of real infantry skills.

Firefly · 2012-07-23, 11:47 AM

I paint a scenario where not a single person realised that it was real until AFTER the first three or four rounds had been fired. You should do your homework on the scenario instead of copy/pasting the one or two lines you see which make you think you had a fighting chance. The vast majority of people in that theatre saw a guy with a gun and didn't do anything until four rounds in. Allegedly he started shooting AFTER he popped smoke, but I don't know that the breakdown has been clarified and vetted.

You guys also forget that there are numerous examples of gun-wielding Rambos in society who act in collusion with other gun-wielding Rambos. So, who's to say that someone else in a dark, smoke-filled theatre filled with screaming, fleeing, panic-filled people who starts firing a weapon isn't working with the guy?

It's one thing to stand in a pistol range and fire at a stationary target under optimal conditions. It's the complete opposite to be in a hellish warzone and return fire with aimed fire.

Firefly · 2012-07-23, 11:56 AM

Here I put in bigger font, maybe you missed it the first time:

The vast majority of people in that theatre saw a guy with a gun and didn't do anything until four rounds in.

Baneblade · 2012-07-23, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Firefly

The SWAT team was decimated.

I'm curious why this is.

On topic, if I had been armed in a theatre (I shouldn't be in the first place), I wouldn't have even drawn my weapon without assessing the situation. Civilians fuck things up.

Figment · 2012-07-23, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

And none of that would ever be sufficient to actually win a war. Armed civilians were required for success. Maybe if they brought their own guns and were "deputized" into the army at the last minute, would that make you happy? Does it make you feel better if everyone who has a gun wears a uniform?

The point I and others made is not that "you don't need ground forces" as we never said that, but that "you can't cope with military grade equipment with just rifles".

As long as the military is willing to subjugate the people by force, you have a problem as a populace, regardless if you're armed or not.

Plus, I'd even say that it's harder for a military person to fight someone who is unarmed than someone who is armed due to ethical reasons.