An interesting take on gun control

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

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

Your percentage seems a bit on the hit side. I realize it's the NRA number, but it's not supported by anyone else.

Didn't get the number from the NRA.

I realize that blaming everything on the NRA is the standard topic of the left, but maybe you should check your assumptions at the door.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok then, consider it 'owned' I also stand by this line of thinking.

I don't understand why you are in favor of gun control in the face of a militant crackdown where you will be called upon to fight and presumably overthrow a stronger force

No gun control supporter is in this thread so far. This confusion of your's is making your responses a bit chaotic.

No, the wide disagreement is your assertion that citizens with guns can't be effective against its military. Numerous counterpoints have been raised and so far you have ignored them.

The (best translation) claim is that gun control is unneeded because the people don't stand a chance even with guns. History suggests the reverse - even strict gun control can't stop a determined people from stopping their government. India got rid of the Brits, for example. But it takes longer and is much more difficult. Iranians are still in a bad spot. Same with the Syrians. The Iraqis show that you can very effectively resist a government, but it's a different matter to create a new one that nearly all are happy with.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

Your percentage seems a bit on the hit side. I realize it's the NRA number, but it's not supported by anyone else.

Didn't get the number from the NRA.

I didn't say you did. You probably heard it from somebody that did though. I mean, you didn't just grab that 50% number out of the air did you? Right? You DID hear it from somebody; no?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jockeyshifter63 0]

TKoontz, despite the fact that we cannot legally own a rocket launcher per se, I feel that the very fact the populace is armed and has the right to be armed will keep the Federal Govt from entertaining any thots of running roughshod over the people. Frankly I think the first time the military is ordered to take action en mass against the people of the US, a very large percentage of the men and women serving will pack up and join their families on the peoples side. Probably taking some of those cool toys with them in the process. My two cents.

[kelpdiver 2]

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.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

Your percentage seems a bit on the hit side. I realize it's the NRA number, but it's not supported by anyone else.

Didn't get the number from the NRA.

I didn't say you did.

No, you just inferred it to attempt the usual discrediting.

Quote

You probably heard it from somebody that did though. I mean, you didn't just grab that 50% number out of the air did you? Right? You DID hear it from somebody; no?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership

You *DO* see where your linked data is from GALLUP, right?

Whining over the rough percentage being high while oh-so-carefully not mentioning the rough number range being low.

You couldn't be more transparent if you tried, Paul.

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

[quade 3]

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.

Well the number in 2004 was 38% according to this survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full

In my book a 24% error is not "quibbling."

I will concede the point we don't have month by month data to go on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

You couldn't be more transparent if you tried, Paul.

I know I'm a really pale guy, but geese, you don't have to play the transparent card.

BTW, see footnote #8.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well the number in 2004 was 38% according to this survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full

In my book a 24% error is not "quibbling."

News flash - it's not 2004 any more.

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

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Well the number in 2004 was 38% according to this survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full

In my book a 24% error is not "quibbling."

News flash - it's not 2004 any more.

Ok, please show me the January 2012 numbers then.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well the number in 2004 was 38% according to this survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full

In my book a 24% error is not "quibbling."

News flash - it's not 2004 any more.

Ok, please show me the January 2012 numbers then.

"I will concede the point we don't have month by month data to go on." - Paul Quade, post 32.

Done moving the goalposts yet?

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

[davjohns 1]

I think the 2nd amendment clearly gives me the right to own tanks, F22's and nuclear submarines if I can afford them.

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.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think the 2nd amendment clearly gives me the right to own tanks, F22's and nuclear submarines if I can afford them.

What sort of sling do you use to shoulder-carry that F22?

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

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well the number in 2004 was 38% according to this survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full
In my book a 24% error is not "quibbling."

News flash - it's not 2004 any more.

Ok, please show me the January 2012 numbers then.

"I will concede the point we don't have month by month data to go on." - Paul Quade, post 32.
Done moving the goalposts yet?

YOU were the one bitchin' about not having current and up to the minute data.

If you're going to whine about me not having it, then please provide it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well the number in 2004 was 38% according to this survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full
In my book a 24% error is not "quibbling."

News flash - it's not 2004 any more.

Ok, please show me the January 2012 numbers then.

"I will concede the point we don't have month by month data to go on." - Paul Quade, post 32.
Done moving the goalposts yet?

YOU were the one bitchin' about not having current and up to the
minute data.

Nice strawman - actually, what I said was that it's not 2004 anymore, in response to your use of a poll from said year. To wit; more current info has surpassed the 2004 data.

"Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:"

Appreciate the link to that site, btw...I hadn't seen it before.

The numbers debunk tkoontz' assertion that the military would completely dominate a civilian force even more than what I originally posted.

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

[quade 3]

Quote

The numbers debunk tkoontz' assertion that the military would completely dominate a civilian force even more than what I originally posted.

Maybe . . . I'm not convinced though.

The US government has already been taken over in a non-violent way by corporate interests and the citizenry is worse off than it has been in decades. While sabers have been rattled, I don't think the most strident Tea Party members, even armed with their "tree of liberty must be watered" rhetoric have done anything more than make the most thinly veiled threats; usually keeping them just slightly below the threshold of what would cause the FBI to raid their house as domestic terrorists.

I'll concede that if EVERY armed citizen marched on DC and demanded the overthrow of the US government it might be interesting, but I doubt that with today's electronic surveillance they'd get that organized.

To me, it's a bit like having all the rest of the theater that goes along with modern day America. We have the illusion of free speech, voting and possibly overthrowing the government, but we're so placated with so many other things, we're never going to rise up and actually change anything.

And even if somebody did try, I'm fairly certain it would be stopped in the organizing stages.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And even if somebody did try, I'm fairly certain it would be stopped in the organizing stages.

I think it probably would, too - of course, that's the exact opposite of what tkoontz talks about, where the government has turned upon the citizens.

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

[TKoontz 0]

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.)

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'll concede that if EVERY armed citizen marched on DC and demanded the overthrow of the US government it might be interesting, but I doubt that with today's electronic surveillance they'd get that organized.

given the success of Occupy, and the earlier Anonymous attacks on BART earlier in the summer, it's pretty clear that the city governments can't come close to keeping up with the protestors. Certain secret fed agencies have a bit more capability and disdain for civil rights, but again you need only look at what twitter did in the middle east uprisings to see that your conclusion is more negative than reality.

As for the gun ownership percentages - it's a nice diversion from the subject at hand, but 3 million active and reserved personnel are greatly outnumbered if the figure is 30%, 40%, or 50%, so it's not really a necessary debate. 10:1 on the low side. And let's not forget that if the situation is bad enough that millions might contemplate such action, millions more would attempt to obtain weapons, so the figure moves upward.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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

And because it completely crushes your argument, but we won't mention that part.

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?

Yes.

Quote

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?

Let's turn that on it's head - do you think that burst fire M-4 is going to matter when the infantry is so grossly outnumbered?

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

[TKoontz 0]

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?

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm looking at this from the point of view of hardware (JDAM, BLU-116, AMRAAM, MOAB, GAU-12, GAU-16 etc...).

Planes have to land and can be disabled more easily than you'd think.

Quote

If you had an assault riffle and you knew you had to go up against a warthog, would you?

Your scenario is entirely unrealistic. You say that we can't use guerilla tactics, then state that Fed.gov would use open battlefield tactics in return as if the citizens were lined up in company order marching across Agincourt.

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

[TKoontz 0]

This is what I was hoping we could avoid: numbers games. Not because I think they'll blow up my argument, but becasue that's not what I initially wanted to talk about.

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

That is no longer the case. Today, the military's technology far surpasses our own in destructive power and intimidation factors. This leads me to believe, coupled with a relatively content and oft divided civilian population, a successful uprising would not be likely. That and how gun control is bad in that regard.

That's all.

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[mnealtx 0]

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).

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

[billvon 2,436]

>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.