An interesting take on gun control

[Electronaut 0]

Quote

Quote

300 years ago, civilians could be, and often were armed as well as the military on a technological scale.

Military had cannons even 300 years ago - you're arguing against a false premise. Ordnance != arms for the purpose you're trying to discuss.

Basic accuracy is comparable between mil/civ versions of battle rifles. The infantryman has *some* advantage with burst/auto fire, not an overwhelming one. Civ force has advantages in long-range rifle fire (deer rifles).

You beat me to the punch. One of the scariest weapons to encounter is a long range precision rifle and its wielder. It can be used to selectively pick and choose who will die.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Today, the military's technology far surpasses our own in destructive
>power and intimidation factors.

And - more importantly - intelligence and communications. With control of communications, and good intelligence, most battles that people here seem to envision will never happen to begin with.

that's again more valuable in a traditional warfare situation, not occupation and pacification. The "Mission" was accomplished in Iraq in less than 100 days - we wiped out any organized force using the methods you two speak of. And nearly 9 years later, we're still not succeeding in the scenario that's the focus of this thread.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The numbers are most definitely on the side of the civilians. Guns, people, and even willingness to fight. But maybe the disconnect here is coming from how we're approaching the topic.

I think most people here are arguing from the standpoint of person to person, troop to troop fighting, in which case I think civilians would win most confrontations. I'm looking at this from the point of view of hardware (JDAM, BLU-116, AMRAAM, MOAB, GAU-12, GAU-16 etc...). These capabilities far outstrip anything a civilian can get hold of, not to mention the sheer intimidation factor. If you had an assault riffle and you knew you had to go up against a warthog, would you?

Is the question is really that stupid, how is it an interesting take? Of course a civilian with a 1911 fares badly in a straight up fair fight against a soldier with an M16. Or even a group against a platoon. But that scenario is never going to come up, so it's silly to think about.

It's not like our army likes a fair fight either. Part of the reason our military spending is so high is that we spend a bundle to make it as unfair a fight as possible. We bombed the crap out of Iraq before sending in the ground forces. We invest in next gen fighter planes that can detect, launch missiles, and destroy an enemy before he even knows our guy is there. We use UAVs prolifically - they represent a third of our fighting planes now. We value our soldiers lives much more greatly than the leaders of China or Iraq do. We have to - we don't have the manpower in number or in cheapness that they do.

Now the catch is that most of this innovation we've done for the past 6 decades was in the fight against other big nations, notably the Soviets. A fight that never happened...in fact no nuclear powers have ever directly fought with each other (only the Indians and Pakistanis have come close). So while that prowess made Iraq I and II pretty easy, it didn't serve us so well with Vietnam or Iraq-nation-building, where there was no longer a demarcation line between friendlies and enemies.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." Perhaps easier to sell to your army when it's full of colored people, bit harder sell when it's your own people. But short of that action, how do you defend when 1 in 10 citizens out there is fighting against you? And do you even want to? A significant portion of the military would refuse.

[billvon 2,406]

>that's again more valuable in a traditional warfare situation,
>not occupation and pacification.

I think it's even MORE valuable in urban pacification settings.

Guy talks to his cohorts and tells them he will lead an attack against a government building. That night his house burns down and he is killed. Presto - no attack.

>And nearly 9 years later, we're still not succeeding in the scenario
>that's the focus of this thread.

Yep. But there is a new government over there, and they're not in danger of losing it. They will never like us as much as we want them to - but that's a different story.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>that's again more valuable in a traditional warfare situation,
>not occupation and pacification.

I think it's even MORE valuable in urban pacification settings.

Guy talks to his cohorts and tells them he will lead an attack against a government building. That night his house burns down and he is killed. Presto - no attack.

Didn't prevent Occupy Oakland from shutting down the port on two separate occasions. And these are dope smoking hippies! Many of whom lack homes to burn down.

They would use the same methods as the drug dealers. The ATF and DEA are well funded and not held back by rights concerns, and they're not exactly winning the war on drugs, are they? Pay per use cell phones aren't very traceable to a person. Location isn't accurate enough in an apartment building, and you can burn it all down. If you really feared that capability, you flood it with false flags.

[quade 3]

By all means, tell billvon about what can and can't be done with cell phones.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TrmnlViscocity 0]

Quote

I have ignored the points about guerilla tactics being effective because I am not talking about that.

Do you disagree that the military, on the whole, is better armed with far more devastating power than citizens are at this point in time?

Now imagine if those weapons were trained on you. Do you think your Kimber .45 or AR-15 build is going to matter faced with those odds?

And how many civilians do you realistically are going to rush the streets, guns ablaze, ready to die defending their freedoms against a force like that? We've already shown our willingness to curl up and accept a loss of freedoms without *much* violent behavior before.

To concede the point: Yes, guerilla warfare is very effective, yes I think that for a time it would cause a lot of problems for a dictator trying to crush resistance, and yes, I think military personnell would defect. But not all (remember, a dictator isn't one without a force to back him up, and a militant dictatorship is what we're assuming atm.)

Not to forget what type of combat our military has been fighting the past decade. The tactics evolved for a fight against non-uniformed enemies in suburban areas.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some 50% of American households (40-50 million) have a gun.

Your percentage seems a bit on the high side. I realize it's more or less the NRA number (which was 45% in 2010), but it's not supported by anyone else's surveys.

It's quibbling a bit to make a big deal over 45% versus 50%...this isn't an election. And your source, btw, is based on 2010 data, before the changes in rights for residents of Chicago or NYC took hold.

Even at the low side of 40%, this number vastly outnumbers our armed forces and police forces.

And then integrate with that, the fact that there are far more military veterans in civilian life than in the active duty armed forces. 20 million versus 1.5 million. And most of those veterans have guns, know how to use 'em, and also know how the active duty forces think and operate - they used to be part of them. So the veterans outnumber the active duty forces 13 to 1.

And that doesn't even factor in the number of civilians that would join in.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you disagree that the military, on the whole, is better armed with far more devastating power than citizens are at this point in time?

Now imagine if those weapons were trained on you. Do you think your Kimber .45 or AR-15 build is going to matter faced with those odds?

And how many civilians do you realistically are going to rush the streets, guns ablaze, ready to die defending their freedoms against a force like that?

Yes, the military is better armed. Your mistake is assuming that all active duty forces would blindy follow orders to attack their own countrymen. They wouldn't. Many/Most would turn against any commander giving such orders, using those arms against the units that are attacking civilians. You would have a civil war amidst the armed forces.

Those civilian arms won the wars in the American Revolution, War of 1812, Texas Independence, and so on. And those were against the most professionally trained and equipped armies of their day.

The Revolutionary War was won by only a small number of civilian participants actually doing the fighting. Many others would be sympathizers that would provide support with things like food, shelter and intelligence.

The history of the world is replete with stories of brave bands of men fighting against overwhelming odds to overthrow tyranny, and often winning.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm looking at this from the point of view of hardware (JDAM, BLU-116, AMRAAM, MOAB, GAU-12, GAU-16 etc...). These capabilities far outstrip anything a civilian can get hold of, not to mention the sheer intimidation factor. If you had an assault riffle and you knew you had to go up against a warthog, would you?

If the government used mass casualty weapons against civilians, do you really think that everyone should just do nothing?

An AR-15 against an A-10? If necessary. But you've got to think smarter. You try not to go up against them directly. Instead you attack the base where they're stationed, and you destroy them on the ground, destroy their fuel supply, capture their armaments, kill their pilots. Then you don't have to face them in the air.

And those A-10 pilots would be up against F-15 pilots who fight back against the orders to attack civilians, so they'll have their own high-tech weaponry to worry about.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

By all means, tell billvon about what can and can't be done with cell phones.

He can defend his claims if he chooses. His expertise doesn't change actual history.

The BART protests in the summer started with a minor rant because the BART police shot a crazy person with a knife. Somehow this was wrong. But BART bollocks up the whole situation when they decided to shut off cellular service in the underground station to prevent coordination among the protestors. This is when it really exploded and Anonymous sent down a region of geeky hippies to muck things up, to pwn the BART web site, etc. And only a bit later Anonymous initiated OWS. Surprising to me, this one took off, unlike the weekly BART protest.

So how does the authoritarian government handle this? Shoot them all on the initial week? Shut down cell service across the city? As I said, it's a lot easier to do these things without worrying about the collateral damage when it's in another country, and a lot easier to get the servicemen to do it when it's foreigners.

[billvon 2,406]

>They would use the same methods as the drug dealers.

Yep. And a great many drug dealers are caught that way.

>Pay per use cell phones aren't very traceable to a person.

Not very traceable, but they are indeed traceable by someone who is determined.

>If you really feared that capability, you flood it with false flags.

Yep. You'd need a pretty sophisticated system to tell the false leads from the real ones, eh?

My original argument stands. Personal weapons pale in the face of the ability to monitor and control communications and intelligence flows. That's the government's strongest available weapon should they need it during a uprising or a civil war.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My original argument stands. Personal weapons pale in the face of the ability to monitor and control communications and intelligence flows. That's the government's strongest available weapon should they need it during a uprising or a civil war.

if only they could employ 40% of the population to use those tools. I think Hungary might have been close in the darkest periods of the Cold War. Everyone was an informer. When the West did some sort of cultural event (circus, ballet?), nearly everyone in the stands was there to make sure no one tried to defect or even talk to the capitalist pigs.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If the government used mass casualty weapons against civilians, do you really think that everyone should just do nothing?

strawman - nowhere in the entire thread did anyone state that civilians do nothing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If the government used mass casualty weapons against civilians, do you really think that everyone should just do nothing?

strawman - nowhere in the entire thread did anyone state that civilians do nothing

The OP didn't explicitly state it, but he *does* spend the whole thread alluding to the uselessness of resisting fed.gov...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the government used mass casualty weapons against civilians, do you really think that everyone should just do nothing?

strawman - nowhere in the entire thread did anyone state that civilians do nothing

The OP didn't explicitly state it, but he *does* spend the whole thread alluding to the uselessness of resisting fed.gov...

nope, we pulled on that string and he clarified that that the point his old man was actually making was that the difference is so vast, that there's little point in the government trying to implement hard controls.

people incorrectly inferred the opposite interpretation which is spawning all this tangent about how a populace would be able to resist despite it all. which is a fun tangent

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the government used mass casualty weapons against civilians, do you really think that everyone should just do nothing?

strawman - nowhere in the entire thread did anyone state that civilians do nothing

The OP didn't explicitly state it, but he *does* spend the whole thread alluding to the uselessness of resisting fed.gov...

nope, we pulled on that string and he clarified that that the point his old man was actually making was that the difference is so vast, that there's little point in the government trying to implement hard controls.

No, not really - from the OP:

"In this context, my dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible."

He and his dad operate from the mistaken assumption that JDAMS and Vulcan cannons make gun control obsolete...while I certainly don't agree with the overall concept of gun control, the technology argument doesn't make the case that he and his dad thinks it does, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

ooooooh - so we'll be picking it apart even though a clarification came later. FUN

OK, John's strawman noted a position that 'everybody should do nothing'

You note that "an uprising against the gov is virtually impossible"

how does those two equate then? I am stuck with the idea that you think JR is a quitter that wouldn't try even against the worst odds? (I think more highly of his national devotion).

How'd I do? This is fun.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Have a good weekend

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

ooooooh - so we'll be picking it apart even though a clarification came later. FUN

His clarifaction was a rehash of the original argument - fed.gov has tanks and bombs and nobody could withstand that, so why would fed.gov bother with gun control...which, of course, has been stated several times in the past by some of the more leftward-leaning members of SC.

I think the discussion so far in the thread has pretty well debunked the argument.

Quote

OK, John's strawman noted a position that 'everybody should do nothing'

I don't see it as a strawman, since the original post was basically 'witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station fed.gov".

Quote

You note that "an uprising against the gov is virtually impossible"

No - *HE* notes that 'an uprising against the gov is virtually impossible'.

Quote

how does those two equate then?

Again, from the OP: "And if an oppressive government decides to turn them against you or your 'well regulated militia' you'll be reduced to a cloud of red mist."

Sure looks like he's saying it's futile to even try to stand against the gov't...wouldn't you say?

Quote

I am stuck with the idea that you think JR is a quitter that wouldn't try even against the worst odds? (I think more highly of his national devotion).

EXCELLENT piss-take!

Quote

How'd I do? This is fun.

It was outstanding!! Have a great weekend!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

ooooooh - so we'll be picking it apart even though a clarification came later. FUN

the OP gave us 2 or 3 rounds of clarifications and declarifications. It's like getting DD to take a stand on money.

Mike accurately stated what seems to be the most likely belief from "Dad."

[davjohns 1]

I think it's interesting that some of the opinions here assume whatever divides the country will not divide the military as well. They seem to believe that Soldiers and Citizens are mutually exclusive.

The oath of every service member is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic'.

So, if there were an event that divided the citizenry, I suspect it would divide the military. Some military would see loyalists as a threat to the Constitution. Some would see it the other way. And weaponry would be split as well.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I think it's interesting that some of the opinions here assume whatever divides the country will not divide the military as well. They seem to believe that Soldiers and Citizens are mutually exclusive.

The oath of every service member is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic'.

So, if there were an event that divided the citizenry, I suspect it would divide the military. Some military would see loyalists as a threat to the Constitution. Some would see it the other way. And weaponry would be split as well.

I disagree and here's why.
I don't think there's any American military commander that would make the attempt to split his chain of command away from any other. They may argue till they are blue in the face at the top level but it's unlikely that any one of them would say, "OK...you take your guys and defend that group and I'll take my guys and defend this group. See you on the battlefield."

After all, they take their top-level orders from the Commander-in-Chief...one person. None of them are going to tell the CIC that they are not going to follow his orders.

I think it's also highly unlikely that the commanders would sneak off on their own to lay plans to subvert the CIC...after all, that would be a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think it's also highly unlikely that the commanders would sneak off on their own to lay plans to subvert the CIC...after all, that would be a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution.

Going against the CIC *could* be considered a violation of 'obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me', but I think ordering the military to take arms against the citizens would be an illegal order and against the Constitution.

Let's hope we never have to find out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it's interesting that some of the opinions here assume whatever divides the country will not divide the military as well. They seem to believe that Soldiers and Citizens are mutually exclusive.

The oath of every service member is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic'.

So, if there were an event that divided the citizenry, I suspect it would divide the military. Some military would see loyalists as a threat to the Constitution. Some would see it the other way. And weaponry would be split as well.

I disagree and here's why.
I don't think there's any American military commander that would make the attempt to split his chain of command away from any other. They may argue till they are blue in the face at the top level but it's unlikely that any one of them would say, "OK...you take your guys and defend that group and I'll take my guys and defend this group. See you on the battlefield."

After all, they take their top-level orders from the Commander-in-Chief...one person. None of them are going to tell the CIC that they are not going to follow his orders.

I think it's also highly unlikely that the commanders would sneak off on their own to lay plans to subvert the CIC...after all, that would be a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution.

Comparing the two lines of thought, I've decided that my next novel will be based on Dave J's version, and not yours. No offense.

But seriously, I think Dave's version has more plausibility than you give it credit. I do think that your scenario would play out in most situations. Shit like Kent State would happen, it would be awful for a while, but they'd keep the lid on discipline and loyalty until the furor blows over. On the other hand, if enough really, really horrible shit hits the fan - say, popular uprisings answered with multiple police/military massacres of large numbers of civilians - in a country like the US where that kind of thing is unthinkable - then that's the kind of thing that I think could propel some rogue units to say, "No, I will not be part of this, and I must oppose it", and act consistent with Dave's scenario.

Everybody thinks that another Civil War in the US is impossible. 30 years ago, I would have agreed with that. Today, and projecting out the next couple of decades, I'm not so sure.