American Gun Laws

[Medwind]

Most people are a 30 minute goggle search away from knowing how to make bombs.

Yet most people are sane enough to not do that. Besides, if one ever were to google that, the police would come within 15 minutes here and place the person in preliminary detainment.

Actually I just looked up how hard it is to build IEDs about 30 min ago. I did that looking for proof that a guerilla war campaign in the us is feasible, (trying to win an argument) came across tons of bomb building websites.
EDIT: not that I actually clicked on any, I just went to good old Wikipedia

[Paddy O Fernature]

Most people are a 30 minute goggle search away from knowing how to make bombs.

Yet most people are sane enough to not do that. Besides, if one ever were to google that, the police would come within 15 minutes here and place the person in preliminary detainment.

I very much doubt this claim. What country are you living in again?

Well, the problem is that mass murder can be committed without firearms. Not to long ago I had an argument on TWP RMB about gun control. One of the things I mentioned then was the use of unconventional weapons in mass murder. Some examples include the woman who purposefully drove her car into a crowd in Las Vegas, or the Australian woman who stabbed several children to death. Unfortunately I am not in the mood to go look up sources so if you want them you will have to use google.

generally speaking, its not as easy to kill lots of people in a building without a gun

Yet most people are sane enough to not do that. Besides, if one ever were to google that, the police would come within 15 minutes here and place the person in preliminary detainment.

Actually I just looked up how hard it is to build IEDs about 30 min ago. I did that looking for proof that a guerilla war campaign in the us is feasible, (trying to win an argument) came across tons of bomb building websites.

It's very easy to do, and the information is widely available across several formats including the internet if you know where to look. My opinion is that America has just been lucky in recent years, and hasn't had to deal with more domestic terrorists building HMX in the basement/kitchen and going on a rampage. Hell, you can buy a electric detonator from pretty much any hobby store in the US for like 10-15 bucks no questions asked.

[Kernen]

Yet most people are sane enough to not do that. Besides, if one ever were to google that, the police would come within 15 minutes here and place the person in preliminary detainment.

Actually I just looked up how hard it is to build IEDs about 30 min ago. I did that looking for proof that a guerilla war campaign in the us is feasible, (trying to win an argument) came across tons of bomb building websites.

I've got a dozen pdf documents on the subject that detail it clearly. Things collected in a misspent youth. It's very easy to acquire this kind of data. People less scrupulous than I make a point of making then accessible.

As a general note, though, I don't share them. I'm not even sure why I have them still. But I do and it wasn't hard to find.

[Herargon]

Yet most people are sane enough to not do that. Besides, if one ever were to google that, the police would come within 15 minutes here and place the person in preliminary detainment.

I very much doubt this claim. What country are you living in again?

generally speaking, its not as easy to kill lots of people in a building without a gun

Actually I just looked up how hard it is to build IEDs about 30 min ago. I did that looking for proof that a guerilla war campaign in the us is feasible, (trying to win an argument) came across tons of bomb building websites.

It's very easy to do, and the information is widely available across several formats including the internet if you know where to look. My opinion is that America has just been lucky in recent years, and hasn't had to deal with more domestic terrorists building HMX in the basement/kitchen and going on a rampage. Hell, you can buy a electric detonator from pretty much any hobby store in the US for like 10-15 bucks no questions asked.

The Netherlands. In my country, it's law that any emergency service (fire department, police, hospitals) must at least be within fifteen minutes of reach of any region.

Also, that photo you posted is provided without any context. Care to elaborate?

Strange. Why do they ask no questions for buying stuff that is often used for weapons? No licenses, like 'I must show my license that I am a builder and need this', or whatsoever?

[Kernen]

I very much doubt this claim. What country are you living in again?



(Image)

The Netherlands. In my country, it's law that any emergency service (fire department, police, hospitals) must at least be within fifteen minutes of reach of any region.

Also, that photo you posted is provided without any context. Care to elaborate?

The building targeted by the Oklahoma City bombers. They packed a van with cheap bomb ingredients which you can still buy at the local hardware store and blew it up.

[Medwind]

Actually I just looked up how hard it is to build IEDs about 30 min ago. I did that looking for proof that a guerilla war campaign in the us is feasible, (trying to win an argument) came across tons of bomb building websites.

I've got a dozen pdf documents on the subject that detail it clearly. Things collected in a misspent youth. It's very easy to acquire this kind of data. People less scrupulous than I make a point of making then accessible.

As a general note, though, I don't share them. I'm not even sure why I have them still. But I do and it wasn't hard to find.

Yeah I am not surprised, I once saw a book in barnes and noble that detailed how to create bombs with everyday items it was some kind of SO book, might have been BS though.

[Herargon]

The Netherlands. In my country, it's law that any emergency service (fire department, police, hospitals) must at least be within fifteen minutes of reach of any region.

Also, that photo you posted is provided without any context. Care to elaborate?

The building targeted by the Oklahoma City bombers. They packed a van with cheap bomb ingredients which you can still buy at the local hardware store and blew it up.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I very much doubt this claim. What country are you living in again?

The Netherlands. In my country, it's law that any emergency service (fire department, police, hospitals) must at least be within fifteen minutes of reach of any region.

Also, that photo you posted is provided without any context. Care to elaborate?

That nice.

Sadly, most of America doesn't share that luxery that you so enjoy. For example, it's a 45 min drive going code to the nearest hospital from my county where I live.

As for the photo, that's whats left of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City after a guy named Timothy McVeigh got through with it.

[The Emerald Legion]

I myself would prefer to keep the government weaker. There is a fine balance of power between the people and the state. Taking away their guns would only make it possible to steal their civil liberties.

Possession of small arms is not going to save you from a modern military force. It does not matter how many guns, or how much ammo you have when a succession of drones level your entire city block while your killers sit in a secure bunker miles from your home.

The days of militiamen with guns being a relevant military force are long since over.

[Herargon]

The Netherlands. In my country, it's law that any emergency service (fire department, police, hospitals) must at least be within fifteen minutes of reach of any region.

Also, that photo you posted is provided without any context. Care to elaborate?

That nice.

Sadly, most of America doesn't share that luxery that you so enjoy. For example, it's a 45 min drive going code to the nearest hospital from my county where I live.

As for the photo, that's whats left of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City after a guy named Timothy McVeigh got through with it.

There's a saying ''In X we are good. In Y, we aren't satisfied enough with it, and we make it better.''
You Americans are very positive, generally, and make yourself often better. When a corny movie comes out in your country, for example, almost immediately a new one pops up that is better.
You lot could extend that to emergency services as well, and benefit from it.

Sadly, I do not know about the Oklahoma bombings much. We here generally get our news from Europe. But, boy, that indeed is a large damage there on the building. How many killed and wounded, and survivors were there?

[Medwind]

I myself would prefer to keep the government weaker. There is a fine balance of power between the people and the state. Taking away their guns would only make it possible to steal their civil liberties.

Possession of small arms is not going to save you from a modern military force. It does not matter how many guns, or how much ammo you have when a succession of drones level your entire city block while your killers sit in a secure bunker miles from your home.

The days of militiamen with guns being a relevant military force are long since over.

Man we have already been over this so many times.
Guerrilla warfare, blending in with the civilian population, striking soft targets, IEDs, Bombings, using civilians as shields, ambushes, desertions and switching of sides, hitting the enemy whenever you safely can, like the Taliban and Vietnamese goat herder/farmer by day insurgent by night. it's possible. Conventional forces don't always win in asymmetrical wars the US would end up like Vietnam wrecked economy heavy casualties.
Oh and one more thing, the military would likely refuse to "level your entire city block" even if they knew where you were due to the amount of civilian casualties it would cause. Even if they did it, they would only be making the population hate them for killing innocent American bystanders.

"The days of militiamen with guns being a relevant military force are long since over." haha tell that to the Taliban and other insurgent groups across the middle east. Do you think they have tanks, aircraft, other heavy weaponry? Lol don't kid yourself, they are very lucky if they have running water and toilet paper, and yet the strongest military in the world was unable to stamp them out, because they don't fight on our terms.

[Paddy O Fernature]

That nice.

Sadly, most of America doesn't share that luxery that you so enjoy. For example, it's a 45 min drive going code to the nearest hospital from my county where I live.

As for the photo, that's whats left of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City after a guy named Timothy McVeigh got through with it.

There's a saying ''In X we are good. In Y, we aren't satisfied enough with it, and we make it better.''
You Americans are very positive, generally, and make yourself often better. When a corny movie comes out in your country, for example, almost immediately a new one pops up that is better.
You lot could extend that to emergency services as well, and benefit from it.

Sadly, I do not know about the Oklahoma bombings much. We here generally get our news from Europe. But, boy, that indeed is a large damage there on the building. How many killed and wounded, and survivors were there?

Yeah, except Joe Taxpayer isn't going to pay for that massive and almost impossible overhaul of the system to support that, which still wouldn't be able to reach everyone due to the sheer size of the US and the remoteness that some people choose to live in.

Link.

[Medwind]

There's a saying ''In X we are good. In Y, we aren't satisfied enough with it, and we make it better.''
You Americans are very positive, generally, and make yourself often better. When a corny movie comes out in your country, for example, almost immediately a new one pops up that is better.
You lot could extend that to emergency services as well, and benefit from it.

Sadly, I do not know about the Oklahoma bombings much. We here generally get our news from Europe. But, boy, that indeed is a large damage there on the building. How many killed and wounded, and survivors were there?

Yeah, except Joe Taxpayer isn't going to pay for that massive and almost impossible overhaul of the system to support that, which still wouldn't be able to reach everyone due to the sheer size of the US and the remoteness that some people choose to live in.

Link.

I don't think such reform is necessary or feasible.

[Imperializt Russia]

Possession of small arms is not going to save you from a modern military force. It does not matter how many guns, or how much ammo you have when a succession of drones level your entire city block while your killers sit in a secure bunker miles from your home.

The days of militiamen with guns being a relevant military force are long since over.

Man we have already been over this so many times.
Guerrilla warfare, blending in with the civilian population, striking soft targets, IEDs, Bombings, using civilians as shields, ambushes, desertions and switching of sides, hitting the enemy whenever you safely can, like the Taliban and Vietnamese goat herder/farmer by day insurgent by night. it's possible. Conventional forces don't always win in asymmetrical wars the US would end up like Vietnam wrecked economy heavy casualties.
Oh and one more thing, the military would likely refuse to "level your entire city block" even if they knew where you were due to the amount of civilian casualties it would cause. Even if they did it, they would only be making the population hate them for killing innocent American bystanders.

"The days of militiamen with guns being a relevant military force are long since over." haha tell that to the Taliban and other insurgent groups across the middle east. Do you think they have tanks, aircraft, other heavy weaponry? Lol don't kid yourself, they are very lucky if they have running water and toilet paper, and yet the strongest military in the world was unable to stamp them out, because they don't fight on our terms.

The effectiveness of the tactics you describe are greatly overstated.
First off, on a per-man basis, they're grossly inferior to anything a counter-insurgency force can put down. With only a handful of exceptions, insurgencies lose many times more men in combat and to arrest than the counter-insurgent force.

Guerilla warfare is only particularly useful against a foreign force occupying your country, or bolstering your government that you are also fighting. Because guerilla attacks don't do much. They delay efforts, they cause annoyance, they decrease morale. They aren't grand moves that decimate an opposing force, that's what conventional warfare does.
Guerilla warfare won't do shit against your own government's forces, because you can't persuade them to withdraw. Where to? This is their home they're fighting over, too.

Remember also that when insurgent forces do eventually move to the conventional phase - which if you want to "win", you have to do, insurgencies cannot sustain attrition better than a professional military because they simply have fewer bodies and less capability - they tend to get stomped, or at least die in droves until the foreign power is worn down and withdraws. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, on the field of battle the OpFor that American or coalition forces faced were absolutely no match and were destroyed whenever it came up.
Vietnam was a war lost in America itself, not to the tactics of Vietnamese insurgents or even the NVA regulars.

[Pan Asian Amercian Coalition]

So America, if you want to stop gun violence why don't you just vote for people who will put much tighter regulations on guns than you currently have instead of arming people?

Because legally owned guns are not the ones that are causing the problem. It's the ones obtained illegally, but criminals, that cause the problem. That, and the US has a extremely serious gang crisis, which if you account for when looking at the numbers for gun deaths, the US does not have any more deaths per gun owned than any other country that allows citizens to have guns.

[Medwind]

Man we have already been over this so many times.
Guerrilla warfare, blending in with the civilian population, striking soft targets, IEDs, Bombings, using civilians as shields, ambushes, desertions and switching of sides, hitting the enemy whenever you safely can, like the Taliban and Vietnamese goat herder/farmer by day insurgent by night. it's possible. Conventional forces don't always win in asymmetrical wars the US would end up like Vietnam wrecked economy heavy casualties.
Oh and one more thing, the military would likely refuse to "level your entire city block" even if they knew where you were due to the amount of civilian casualties it would cause. Even if they did it, they would only be making the population hate them for killing innocent American bystanders.

"The days of militiamen with guns being a relevant military force are long since over." haha tell that to the Taliban and other insurgent groups across the middle east. Do you think they have tanks, aircraft, other heavy weaponry? Lol don't kid yourself, they are very lucky if they have running water and toilet paper, and yet the strongest military in the world was unable to stamp them out, because they don't fight on our terms.

The effectiveness of the tactics you describe are greatly overstated.
First off, on a per-man basis, they're grossly inferior to anything a counter-insurgency force can put down. With only a handful of exceptions, insurgencies lose many times more men in combat and to arrest than the counter-insurgent force.

Guerilla warfare is only particularly useful against a foreign force occupying your country, or bolstering your government that you are also fighting. Because guerilla attacks don't do much. They delay efforts, they cause annoyance, they decrease morale. They aren't grand moves that decimate an opposing force, that's what conventional warfare does.
Guerilla warfare won't do shit against your own government's forces, because you can't persuade them to withdraw. Where to? This is their home they're fighting over, too.

Remember also that when insurgent forces do eventually move to the conventional phase - which if you want to "win", you have to do, insurgencies cannot sustain attrition better than a professional military because they simply have fewer bodies and less capability - they tend to get stomped, or at least die in droves until the foreign power is worn down and withdraws. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, on the field of battle the OpFor that American or coalition forces faced were absolutely no match and were destroyed whenever it came up.
Vietnam was a war lost in America itself, not to the tactics of Vietnamese insurgents or even the NVA regulars.

Everything you have stated here makes sense, you raise some good points. Here is my counter argument: the goal of the rebellious force should be to strain the nations economy and cause so much hardship and death that the will of the people is shaken. That is how they should win in such a scenario, hide amongst the people whilst doing as much damage to the enemies forces as possible resulting in peace talks, which hopefully will address their grievances. I don't expect these troops to launch a full scale Tet style offensive, I expect them to force the government to the table to win an advantageous deal that resolves whatever issues caused the strife.

[Esternial]

They're full of shit. It is not necessary.

OTOH, there are some states where the crime rates are low and hunting is popular, and I think it makes sense for those states to keep doing what they're doing.

It's not necessary, but it makes people feel safe, and, may even deter crime if worn openly. Also there is always the possibility that todays the day some criminal decides to rob you, and you need a weapon to defend yourself, and, your property. So overall why not carry one? You don't strictly need to, but it sure is useful if you step into some s***, could save your life.

Though really that argument can be made for a lot of things. Why do we all not carry a medkit with us at all times?

[Medwind]

It's not necessary, but it makes people feel safe, and, may even deter crime if worn openly. Also there is always the possibility that todays the day some criminal decides to rob you, and you need a weapon to defend yourself, and, your property. So overall why not carry one? You don't strictly need to, but it sure is useful if you step into some s***, could save your life.

Though really that argument can be made for a lot of things. Why do we all not carry a medkit with us at all times?

Maybe we should.

[Imperializt Russia]

The effectiveness of the tactics you describe are greatly overstated.
First off, on a per-man basis, they're grossly inferior to anything a counter-insurgency force can put down. With only a handful of exceptions, insurgencies lose many times more men in combat and to arrest than the counter-insurgent force.

Guerilla warfare is only particularly useful against a foreign force occupying your country, or bolstering your government that you are also fighting. Because guerilla attacks don't do much. They delay efforts, they cause annoyance, they decrease morale. They aren't grand moves that decimate an opposing force, that's what conventional warfare does.
Guerilla warfare won't do shit against your own government's forces, because you can't persuade them to withdraw. Where to? This is their home they're fighting over, too.

Remember also that when insurgent forces do eventually move to the conventional phase - which if you want to "win", you have to do, insurgencies cannot sustain attrition better than a professional military because they simply have fewer bodies and less capability - they tend to get stomped, or at least die in droves until the foreign power is worn down and withdraws. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, on the field of battle the OpFor that American or coalition forces faced were absolutely no match and were destroyed whenever it came up.
Vietnam was a war lost in America itself, not to the tactics of Vietnamese insurgents or even the NVA regulars.

Everything you have stated here makes sense, you raise some good points. Here is my counter argument: the goal of the rebellious force should be to strain the nations economy and cause so much hardship and death that the will of the people is shaken. That is how they should win in such a scenario, hide amongst the people whilst doing as much damage to the enemies forces as possible resulting in peace talks, which hopefully will address their grievances. I don't expect these troops to launch a full scale Tet style offensive, I expect them to force the government to the table to win an advantages deal that resolves whatever issues caused the strife.

That'll endear your own countrymen to your cause, hmm yes.

Ask the IRA how their generous kneecapping services endeared all of Northern Ireland to the secessionist cause.

[Medwind]

Everything you have stated here makes sense, you raise some good points. Here is my counter argument: the goal of the rebellious force should be to strain the nations economy and cause so much hardship and death that the will of the people is shaken. That is how they should win in such a scenario, hide amongst the people whilst doing as much damage to the enemies forces as possible resulting in peace talks, which hopefully will address their grievances. I don't expect these troops to launch a full scale Tet style offensive, I expect them to force the government to the table to win an advantages deal that resolves whatever issues caused the strife.

That'll endear your own countrymen to your cause, hmm yes.

Ask the IRA how their generous kneecapping services endeared all of Northern Ireland to the secessionist cause.

Yeah, I considered that as well, after all a insurgency without the support of the people will probably fail. Perhaps, if they confined their attacks to military targets only, hoping to provoke retaliation, which would then be directed at not just them but the civilians as well (see Serbia during Austro-Hungarian occupation) resulting in an enraged populace and more support for the cause.

EDIT: Again I am not suggesting that I support these things, I'm just arguing the point.

[Medwind]

I honestly expected more votes against gun rights, due to the number of leftists on NS. Where are all of the liberals?

[Vassenor]

I honestly expected more votes against gun rights, due to the number of leftists on NS. Where are all of the liberals?

Avoiding a topic where they know they're just going to get abuse for having the "wrong" opinion.

[Medwind]

I honestly expected more votes against gun rights, due to the number of leftists on NS. Where are all of the liberals?

Avoiding a topic where they know they're just going to get abuse for having the "wrong" opinion.

Haha, I often feel the same way about liberals. However I don't think I have verbally abused anyone thus far, nor have I witnessed any personal insults or things of that nature. Honestly I wish more liberals would argue in favor of gun control, it would give me a chance to (hopefully) trounce lib view points.

[Imperializt Russia]

I honestly expected more votes against gun rights, due to the number of leftists on NS. Where are all of the liberals?

Not paying attention to reductionist assumptions of position.

[Vassenor]

Avoiding a topic where they know they're just going to get abuse for having the "wrong" opinion.

Haha, I often feel the same way about liberals. However I don't think I have verbally abused anyone thus far, nor have I witnessed any personal insults or things of that nature. Honestly I wish more liberals would argue in favor of gun control, it would give me a chance to (hopefully) trounce lib view points.

Obviously you've never been around for the times when even suggesting small changes to regulations got you labelled a "gun grabber".