Civilian firearms in USA, should they be banned?

[Indeos]

Not really. You can have a bunch of motivated people dying everywhere and failing to get anything done.

I disagree. People who are willing to give up their lives and fight to their last breath are not only effective in that they will do what needs to be done, but also demoralizing to the enemy. See: Vietnam.

The VietCong had organization and guerrilla training. In fact, they had a very well organized logistics organization, and that's why they were effective.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I disagree. People who are willing to give up their lives and fight to their last breath are not only effective in that they will do what needs to be done, but also demoralizing to the enemy. See: Vietnam.

The VietCong had organization and guerrilla training. In fact, they had a very well organized logistics organization, and that's why they were effective.

Both are reasons for their success. It doesn't do you any good to be able to get troops and supplies wherever you need them if they turn tail and run when they get there. Conversely, it doesn't do you any good to have a well motivated fighting force if they can't be deployed properly.

This thread is starting to drift off topic again...

[Indeos]

The VietCong had organization and guerrilla training. In fact, they had a very well organized logistics organization, and that's why they were effective.

Both are reasons for their success. It doesn't do you any good to be able to get troops and supplies wherever you need them if they turn tail and run when they get there. Conversely, it doesn't do you any good to have a well motivated fighting force if they can't be deployed properly.

This thread is starting to drift off topic again...

Morale is necessary, but morale alone will not make your disorganized fighting force effective.

Yeah it is, I'm out of here and done.

[Caninope]

I disagree. People who are willing to give up their lives and fight to their last breath are not only effective in that they will do what needs to be done, but also demoralizing to the enemy. See: Vietnam.

The VietCong had organization and guerrilla training. In fact, they had a very well organized logistics organization, and that's why they were effective.

No, their logistics made them efficient. Slight difference there.

[Keronians]

The VietCong had organization and guerrilla training. In fact, they had a very well organized logistics organization, and that's why they were effective.

No, their logistics made them efficient. Slight difference there.

Effective would mean that they are capable of beating their opponents.

Efficient would mean that they are able to use as few resources as possible to obtain the same results.

A professional army with air support, which will probably be much more armed and better equipped, against a mob of patriotic Americans willing to give up their lives for their freedom. Touching and inspiring, but my bet's on the army.

If after they are conquered, they continue resistance, that's another story.

[Galla-]

No, their logistics made them efficient. Slight difference there.

Effective would mean that they are capable of beating their opponents.

Efficient would mean that they are able to use as few resources as possible to obtain the same results.

A professional army with air support, which will probably be much more armed and better equipped, against a mob of patriotic Americans willing to give up their lives for their freedom. Touching and inspiring, but my bet's on the army.

If after they are conquered, they continue resistance, that's another story.

lol, vietnam

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Effective would mean that they are capable of beating their opponents.

Efficient would mean that they are able to use as few resources as possible to obtain the same results.

A professional army with air support, which will probably be much more armed and better equipped, against a mob of patriotic Americans willing to give up their lives for their freedom. Touching and inspiring, but my bet's on the army.

If after they are conquered, they continue resistance, that's another story.

lol, vietnam

Yes Vietnam was quite funny.

[Indeos]

lol, vietnam

Yes Vietnam was quite funny.

It's funny because in Vietnam that guy would lose all his money. Same with the "war on terror" shit going on right now.

Let's get the thread on-track or start an alternate thread for these discussions, though.

[Keronians]

Effective would mean that they are capable of beating their opponents.

Efficient would mean that they are able to use as few resources as possible to obtain the same results.

A professional army with air support, which will probably be much more armed and better equipped, against a mob of patriotic Americans willing to give up their lives for their freedom. Touching and inspiring, but my bet's on the army.

If after they are conquered, they continue resistance, that's another story.

lol, vietnam

Have you read the last page?

In any event, the Viet Cong were organised and were led. They were supplied through the Ho Chi Minh trail by North Vietnam. They used logistics to carry out their operations. They even had military weapons from China and the USSR and trained soldiers (not from China or the USSR, but rather Vietnamese soldiers).

A mob of patriotic Americans is neither organised nor better equipped than a professional army. Compare Vietnamese losses with American losses during the war. Plus, any nation willing to risk invading the USA, will probably be using its full force, unlike the USA in Vietnam.

[Keronians]

Yes Vietnam was quite funny.

It's funny because in Vietnam that guy would lose all his money. Same with the "war on terror" shit going on right now.

Let's get the thread on-track or start an alternate thread for these discussions, though.

Not really, unless the unorganised militia organised itself in time under good leaders, and had ways of countering air strikes, bombing, etc.

[Indeos]

It's funny because in Vietnam that guy would lose all his money. Same with the "war on terror" shit going on right now.

Let's get the thread on-track or start an alternate thread for these discussions, though.

Not really, unless the unorganised militia organised itself in time under good leaders, and had ways of countering air strikes, bombing, etc.

"In Vietnam". Anyway, get the damn thread on topic.

[Galla-]

lol, vietnam

Have you read the last page?

In any event, the Viet Cong were organised and were led. They were supplied through the Ho Chi Minh trail by North Vietnam. They used logistics to carry out their operations. They even had military weapons from China and the USSR and trained soldiers (not from China or the USSR, but rather Vietnamese soldiers).

A mob of patriotic Americans is neither organised nor better equipped than a professional army. Compare Vietnamese losses with American losses during the war. Plus, any nation willing to risk invading the USA, will probably be using its full force, unlike the USA in Vietnam.

Any nation risking invading the USA will not be using its full force, because transporting the numbers of soldiers across the ocean needed to fight the world's largest bunch of gun-owning rednecks is utterly insane. There is no way no effective military could transport enough soldiers across the ocean to fight the USA without some internal political turmoil that results in a schism between the Union, or possibly during civil war.

You'd need a lot of bodies, even then.

America would make Afghanistan and Vietnam look like the Pig War ffs.

[Keronians]

Not really, unless the unorganised militia organised itself in time under good leaders, and had ways of countering air strikes, bombing, etc.

"In Vietnam". Anyway, get the damn thread on topic.

OK. Um, what do we discuss?

[Indeos]

"In Vietnam". Anyway, get the damn thread on topic.

OK. Um, what do we discuss?

Whether or not civilian firearms should be banned. The answer is no. /thread.

[Caninope]

In any event, the Viet Cong were organised and were led.

And I would assume the former military would train and organize the militia in the US.

They used logistics to carry out their operations. They even had military weapons from China and the USSR and trained soldiers (not from China or the USSR, but rather Vietnamese soldiers).

So you're saying NATO would abandon us in an invasion/

A mob of patriotic Americans is neither organised nor better equipped than a professional army.

Neither were the Vietcong, especially at the beginning.

Compare Vietnamese losses with American losses during the war.

OK then. Wikipedia estimates 315,384 allies dead, with ~1,177,462 dead for North Vietnam and it's allies. Grant, that 1 million person mark is high, but I doubt that they lost less than the Americans.

Plus, any nation willing to risk invading the USA, will probably be using its full force, unlike the USA in Vietnam.

MAD ensures that they won't.

[Galla-]

MAD ensures that they won't.

MAD is a joke.

If they do, it ensures that the USA won't strike back except in a conventional sense. If this hypothetical enemy has force projection abilities able to reach the USA and land an effective amphibious force, they must have the ability to completely level the United States and its entire civilian and military population, and vice versa.

The only conflict between two such states would be conventional in nature, or involving the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons.

See: NUTS.

[Keronians]

In any event, the Viet Cong were organised and were led.

And I would assume the former military would train and organize the militia in the US.

They used logistics to carry out their operations. They even had military weapons from China and the USSR and trained soldiers (not from China or the USSR, but rather Vietnamese soldiers).

So you're saying NATO would abandon us in an invasion/

A mob of patriotic Americans is neither organised nor better equipped than a professional army.

Neither were the Vietcong, especially at the beginning.

Compare Vietnamese losses with American losses during the war.

OK then. Wikipedia estimates 315,384 allies dead, with ~1,177,462 dead for North Vietnam and it's allies. Grant, that 1 million person mark is high, but I doubt that they lost less than the Americans.

Plus, any nation willing to risk invading the USA, will probably be using its full force, unlike the USA in Vietnam.

MAD ensures that they won't.

I doubted whether or not to respond, but I decided to.

1) If the US military is still present and that strong, I doubt that the militia would even be needed.

2) No, I'm not. Your (I'm forgetting whose it was, actually. Ignore this if it wasn't yours) hypothetical wasn't clear. In an American Civil War, for example, they may maintain neutrality. If it's one NATO country against another NATO country (for some bizarre reason), then they may maintain neutrality as well, depending on who the aggressor was. Or, if the US was the aggressor, then they could be at war against them as well.

3) But they became so. They needed supplies (and a shitload of them), from North Vietnam from the Ho Chi Minh trail. Where would the Americans get them from? There is no guarantee that they would be able to organise themselves in time. Just like in Vietnam.

4) Yes, that was kind of my point.

5) Meh. If we assert that, then there would be no hypothetical at all, so no threadjacking at all.

[Canis Rex]

No, no one will defend you except yourself, especially some government that cares only about how rich they are and how much power they have.

[Disserbia]

Needs to be better regulated. Maybe slowly phased out. I don't think it should be phased out completely though, I think civilian firearms are important, otherwise if there is a need to rebel against the government or police how will we do it. Occupy obviously isn't working.

[Wamitoria]

No, but zombies should.

[Phocidaea]

Not at all. But we needs greater checks on who can get guns.

Honestly, there are three types of guns that people actually need for the purposes they claim to need guns for: Small pistols for "self-defense" and semi-auto/bolt-action rifles and shotguns for hunting. You don't fucking need an assault rifle to hunt animals, dammit!

[Ralkovia]

Honestly, the only reason that the U.S. has a higher crime rate than Europe is difference in culture. Same reason America has more alcohol deaths, speeding deaths, and quite a number of other things. Compared to America, most Europeans are very laid back. Then compare that to Japan and Asian cultures that have very little crime at all.

In America, violence is more acceptable than depictions of sex. In Europe, its something of the opposite. Putting aside the bans and what not, America has a shit ton of people involved in the gun trade. To get rid of guns, would put tens of thousands of people out of jobs.

Not to mention, gun violence is pretty much segregated down to gangs fighting gangs in the U.S. To be honest, most of the gun violence is just criminals killing other criminals. Hence why the victims of gun violence are black males between the ages of 12-17. These criminal will find access to guns anyway, either through Mexico or the black market. This doesn't effect me at all, let the criminals kill each other.

· 59% of all homicides in 2001 in Los Angeles and 53% in Chicago were gang related, there was a total of 698 gang related homicides in there two cities combined where as 130 other cities with population of at least 100,000 with gang problems reported having a total of 637 homicides between them.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-vio ... elcome.htm

[Paddy O Fernature]

Not at all. But we needs greater checks on who can get guns.

Honestly, there are three types of guns that people actually need for the purposes they claim to need guns for: Small pistols for "self-defense" and semi-auto/bolt-action rifles and shotguns for hunting. You don't fucking need an assault rifle to hunt animals, dammit!

Your right. Assault rifles are pointless for hunting.

Thank god my AR-10 is not an assault rifle..308 is a perfect hunting rifle and has served me well over the years.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Not at all. But we needs greater checks on who can get guns.

Honestly, there are three types of guns that people actually need for the purposes they claim to need guns for: Small pistols for "self-defense" and semi-auto/bolt-action rifles and shotguns for hunting. You don't fucking need an assault rifle to hunt animals, dammit!

I need firearms for having fun shooting at the range. A full auto/select fire assault rifle would be A LOT of fun at the range.

[Bafuria]

Once socioeconomic factors have been taken into account, there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and total homicide rates.

Also, banning semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines to reduce the severity of mass shootings is unlikely to be successful. Even the fastest firing mass shooters rarely shoot more than 2 people per minute while a double-barrel hunting shotgun has a rate of fire of about 15 rounds per minute.

ftp.iza.org/dp3589.pdf


I don's see the point in enforcing any other gun laws than background checks, licensing and the registration of handguns + machineguns.