American Gun Laws

[Vassenor]

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.

You assume people actually know how to run a proper Insurgency rather than trying to make martyrs of themselves.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.

You assume people actually know how to run a proper Insurgency rather than trying to make martyrs of themselves.

I'm pretty sure if Middle Eastern tribals (looking at you Taliban) can do it then far more educated Americans can, veterans are also a very common group when it comes to gun owners so there's that.

[Prolieum]

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.

You assume people actually know how to run a proper Insurgency rather than trying to make martyrs of themselves.

You do realize that if the U.S. government tries to start killing its own citizens, half the officers in the armed forces are going to defect to the insurgency, right? Soldiers are not programmable robots who just shoot whoever you tell them to-they are the friends and family of the law-abiding citizens they are being ordered to kill.

[Vassenor]

You assume people actually know how to run a proper Insurgency rather than trying to make martyrs of themselves.

You do realize that if the U.S. government tries to start killing its own citizens, half the officers in the armed forces are going to defect to the insurgency, right? Soldiers are not programmable robots who just shoot whoever you tell them to-they are the friends and family of the law-abiding citizens they are being ordered to kill.

You assume much.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You do realize that if the U.S. government tries to start killing its own citizens, half the officers in the armed forces are going to defect to the insurgency, right? Soldiers are not programmable robots who just shoot whoever you tell them to-they are the friends and family of the law-abiding citizens they are being ordered to kill.

You assume much.

He really doesn't, any such situation would make the government a domestic enemy.

[Senkaku]

And how is your CCW going to stop an armed takeover?

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.

Yeah, so here's another question. How much of an immediate threat is an armed takeover of the United States? Pretty sure Obama isn't going to launch a coup any time soon, the Jewloominarty's black helicopters are busy elsewhere (don't ask how I know that), and there currently doesn't appear to be a risk of a massive land invasion by a foreign power.

Also, since the active US Army is around 475,000, and reserves bump that to over two million, it sounds to be like the US has plenty of potential guerrilla fighters who would be a lot more effective than your average hick with a couple of rifles or city dweller with a pistol.

Meanwhile, Americans are getting shot every day.

[Spirit of Hope]

You do realize that if the U.S. government tries to start killing its own citizens, half the officers in the armed forces are going to defect to the insurgency, right? Soldiers are not programmable robots who just shoot whoever you tell them to-they are the friends and family of the law-abiding citizens they are being ordered to kill.

You assume much.

All he needs to assume is that some fraction of 66,000,000 people would be willing to resist the government under certain circumstances, and that they wouldn't be idiots about it. Since that has happened multiple times in the past I don't think it is a stretch to say a domestic insurgency would be a major issue for any government.

You seem to be assuming that every one of those people would either be unwilling to resist, or an idiot about resisting. Since that has basically never happened I would say you are assuming a lot.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.

Yeah, so here's another question. How much of an immediate threat is an armed takeover of the United States? Pretty sure Obama isn't going to launch a coup any time soon, the Jewloominarty's black helicopters are busy elsewhere (don't ask how I know that), and there currently doesn't appear to be a risk of a massive land invasion by a foreign power.

Also, since the active US Army is around 475,000, and reserves bump that to over two million, it sounds to be like the US has plenty of potential guerrilla fighters who would be a lot more effective than your average hick with a couple of rifles or city dweller with a pistol.

Meanwhile, Americans are getting shot every day.

I dunno, if a bunch of Afghan tribals can fight us for a decade and still exist using decades old junk I see any American insurgency being a fairly large problem for the military. I don't see this situation ever really happening, but still.

[HMS Vanguard]

As well people under 38,

The demographic most likely to be raped is one of those most in need of firearms.

This graph is horrible. Aside from misspelling "forcible", the crazy illogical colour scheme makes it almost impossible to read.

[Spirit of Hope]

Because a large stock of small arms would allow the civilian populace to resist, look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts through the ages. The civilian population wouldn't need to win a stand up battle against the army. This also doesn't get into the possibility of defection from armed forces, or the ability of such an insurgency to steal weapons from arsenals.

There are 66,000,000 gun owners in the United States, if 1% of them chose to resist the government violently that would be 660,000 fighters. Using the Iraq war as a reference point (~27,000 insurgents killed, 4,425 US killed, 32,223 WIA) we get that US armed forces would suffer 88,000 KIA and 644,000 WIA to take out this insurgency. The entire active US Army is 475,000, including other branches and reserves we get 2,147,000.

Yeah, so here's another question. How much of an immediate threat is an armed takeover of the United States? Pretty sure Obama isn't going to launch a coup any time soon, the Jewloominarty's black helicopters are busy elsewhere (don't ask how I know that), and there currently doesn't appear to be a risk of a massive land invasion by a foreign power.

I don't think any type of government over reach is likely, however no one ever thinks it is going to happen until it does. Since I can not see in the future I would rather be prepared than unready.

Also, since the active US Army is around 475,000, and reserves bump that to over two million, it sounds to be like the US has plenty of potential guerrilla fighters who would be a lot more effective than your average hick with a couple of rifles or city dweller with a pistol.

You must have missed the part where the armed forces would take 30+% casualties across their entire force, which would be catastrophic. Especially since the entire number of people in the armed forces and reserves aren't soldiers, a large percentage are support personnel. The combat forces would basically be destroyed by this fight. This also ignores the potability of defection from the armed forces to help the rebels, the fact that a large number of gun owners have military experience and the inability of the armed forces to tell who is a threat. A city dweller with a pistol is a huge issue for counter insurgency because they can walk up to a check point and start shooting, the guards would have no way to know that person is a threat till they start shooting. At which point casualties are already being taken.

Meanwhile, Americans are getting shot every day.

Yes they are, which is why we need to improve education, improve prison sentencing and post prison option,s improve mental healthcare, and other wise fight the root of the homicides and assaults.

[Prolieum]

You do realize that if the U.S. government tries to start killing its own citizens, half the officers in the armed forces are going to defect to the insurgency, right? Soldiers are not programmable robots who just shoot whoever you tell them to-they are the friends and family of the law-abiding citizens they are being ordered to kill.

You assume much.

I "assume" that the men and women in the U.S. military do, in fact have basic moral compulsions and the capability to empathize and sympathize. You know, like the entire mentally healthy population of humanity?

You assume the U.S. military would use tactics against their fellow citizens that they are unwilling to use against actively hostile terrorists. You are the one assuming far too much.

[Tule]

You assume people actually know how to run a proper Insurgency rather than trying to make martyrs of themselves.

I'm pretty sure if Middle Eastern tribals (looking at you Taliban) can do it then far more educated Americans can, veterans are also a very common group when it comes to gun owners so there's that.

The Taliban are practically a branch of the Pakistan Armed Forces.They're not just a bunch of illiterate rebels that spontaneously appear in Afghanistan.

America is too embarrassed to advertise the fact that its fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan with its "ally" Pakistan.

[Thiefs County]

>only a militia can bear arms
>our forefathers literally said something along the lines of "its going to be different in the future so this isn't permanent"


Seriously just go euro and ban private ownership of guns.

[Libertine States of America]

>only a militia can bear arms
>our forefathers literally said something along the lines of "its going to be different in the future so this isn't permanent"


Seriously just go euro and ban private ownership of guns.

I think you should regulate, not ban guns.

[Thiefs County]

>only a militia can bear arms
>our forefathers literally said something along the lines of "its going to be different in the future so this isn't permanent"


Seriously just go euro and ban private ownership of guns.

I think you should regulate, not ban guns.

There isn't any real good reason to keep them in civilians hands.

[Spirit of Hope]

>only a militia can bear arms
>our forefathers literally said something along the lines of "its going to be different in the future so this isn't permanent"


Seriously just go euro and ban private ownership of guns.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm sorry where there does it say only a militia can bear arms? It rather specifically says "the people," a phrase used elsewhere in the constitution to refer to everyone eligible to vote, have a right that "shall not be infringed" to bear arms.

Also where did they say "its going to be different in the future so this isn't permanent?" They left the ability to alter the constitution, but no one has done that to the second amendment yet.

[Tule]

I think you should regulate, not ban guns.

There isn't any real good reason to keep them in civilians hands.

Pest control and sustenance.

Banning guns here would result in an ecological disaster. We have so many introduced species with no natural predators that Hunters are absolutely necessary.

[Spirit of Hope]

I think you should regulate, not ban guns.

There isn't any real good reason to keep them in civilians hands.

I like shooting them. There isn't a good reason to take them away from civilian hands.

There isn't any real good reason to keep them in civilians hands.

Pest control and sustenance.

Banning guns here would result in an ecological disaster. We have so many introduced species with no natural predators that Hunters are absolutely necessary.

Not to mention we have killed of our driven out a large number of the natural predators. Without hunters their would be a significant problem with all animals.

[Prolieum]

Seriously just go euro and ban private ownership of guns.

I think you should regulate, not ban guns.

There isn't any real good reason to keep them in civilians hands.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Militia is given as a reason for the actual operating clause of the Amendment-the right to keep and bear arms being unable to be infringed.

If the First Amendment said

"Active and fair newspapers, being necessary to the democracy in a free state, the right to freedom of press would not be infringed."

Would you then assume that the freedom of the press only pertained to newspapers, not magazines, online productions, etc.?




You need a good reason to not keep them in civilian hands to ban them. The mere fact that it is pretty much impossible to get them out of civilian hands is one right off the bat, as well as the 40,000-2,500,000 self-defensive gun uses annually.

[Genivaria]

Merely banning handguns alone would drastically reduce gun related crime.
Handguns are the most concealable as well as the most often affiliated with actual crime.

[The brianverse]

Also if everyone had hand guns, no one in the right mind would start quickly firing a gun.

[Genivaria]

Also if everyone had hand guns, no one in the right mind would start quickly firing a gun.

In what reality is this?

[Gauthier]

Also if everyone had hand guns, no one in the right mind would start quickly firing a gun.

In what reality is this?

The action movie reality where police are incompetent and slow, and killers are just trying to smell the lack of guns to open fire.

[The brianverse]

Its based on the idea that if all sane, law-abiding citizens had firearms. Someone to arm themselves to steal from you would quite possibly die.

[Vassenor]

Its based on the idea that if all sane, law-abiding citizens had firearms. Someone to arm themselves to steal from you would quite possibly die.

#theonlythingthatcanstopabadguywithagun