What would gun control citizens do???

zsu2357 said:

You mean like your right? Does that mean discussion over?

Click to expand...

I'm citing lots of historical examples, rather than stating unproven assertions, incomplete claims, anecdotes, and disproven urban legends -- while also claiming to be an authority.

In the event of an attack you seem to think civilians would sit back? You seem to think they wouldn't help the military?

Click to expand...

I'm sure some will try. I'm also sure that if the only opposition is civilians with AR15s, they are highly likely to fail.

More to the point, in terms of justification for owning firearms: The idea that American will be invaded, given current circumstances, is utterly ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the OP's idea that "hey, if China invades, won't you feel all dumb for not having a gun?"

Speaking of Iraq how long did that go on for?

Click to expand...

The actual war part? A few weeks, iirc. The part that took 9 years was trying to put back the pieces of the nation that we shattered, and turn it over to a local elected civilian government.

Now, I have no idea what people think will happen in this ludicrous "Invasion USA" scenario, but I kinda doubt that China would invade the US in order to throw out a dictator and whip a little democracy on the US.

And why did we leave? Were we driven out by militias? Were we driven out by civilians bearing AK-47s? No, we left because Bush 43 made an agreement with the Iraqi government, and Obama honored it.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/yemen...ng-hands-mistakenly-in-the-hands-of-al-qaeda/ kinda cut and ran and left a lot of goodies.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that. I'm going off of pre-war figures for Yemen. They have a strong gun culture that long predates both their own civil war, and the US invasion of Iraq.

Don't think an invasion of Iran will happen. Iran is different than Iraq.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying "the US will invade Iran." I'm pointing out that war hawks are not deterred by the prospect of a civilian population that would most likely detest US forces in Iran, and won't have much trouble getting guns.

Manc Skipper said:

Only a third of American households have a gun. The occupants within have an increased risk of being shot.

Click to expand...

A third of armed Americans is already more than 133 million people. That's way more than our standing military combined. As for your stat, youre even more at risk of dying from your car and even more likely to use your firearm in self defense successfully. Why post bogus stats?

Maccabee said:

A third of armed Americans is already more than 133 million people. That's way more than our standing military combined. As for your stat, youre even more at risk of dying from your car and even more likely to use your firearm in self defense successfully. Why post bogus stats?

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that your risk doesn't increase?

A third of households have a gun, but Americans own half the civilian guns in the world. Paranoid or what? Three per cent of that third, own half the guns in the USA!

Manc Skipper said:

Are you claiming that your risk doesn't increase?

A third of households have a gun, but Americans own half the civilian guns in the world. Paranoid or what? Three per cent of that third, own half the guns in the USA!

Click to expand...

I like the fact that we have that freedom and I look down in disgust at countries that are populated by people who are afraid of their neighbors

VanceMack said:

The gun deaths in this country have very little to do with concealed carry and law abiding citizens. They have everything to do with gang bangers, violent thugs...you know...all the people leftists make excuses for and refuse to deal with. Take those people out of the equation and statistically our gun death rates due to criminal acts drop to statistical zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

If you take all those people out of the equation would you not by default also have to remove all the guns? Why would you need them? :lamo Was not the Vegas shooter a law abiding citzens until he was not.

Fraggle Rock said:

If you take all those people out of the equation would you not by default also have to remove all the guns? Why would you need them? :lamo Was not the Vegas shooter a law abiding citzens until he was not.

Click to expand...

you seem to think that the only reason why people own guns is for self defense

Fraggle Rock said:

If you take all those people out of the equation would you not by default also have to remove all the guns? Why would you need them? :lamo Was not the Vegas shooter a law abiding citzens until he was not.

Click to expand...

No...indeed not. As a matter of fact, there are some 300 MILLION firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. And thats the point. Law abiding citizens...legal gun owners...are not the problem. Never have been and never will be. yet, every time mindless dumb-**** leftists get their gun control swag on who do they target? Law abiding citizens. Can YOU explain why those impotent leftist ****s dont target the criminals, thugs, and felons that are killing people on the daily?

TurtleDude said:

you seem to think that the only reason why people own guns is for self defense

Click to expand...

I just completed my first build of an AR on Saturday. Think I found a new hobby. I put together kits for my kids for Christmas so they could have the experience of building them and tearing them down...wanted them to know how to fix anything they shoot instead of being reliant on someone else. Taking it out this morning on its first test run. Already decided the next build will be the .50 cal Beowulf...just because.

VanceMack said:

No...indeed not. As a matter of fact, there are some 300 MILLION firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. And thats the point. Law abiding citizens...legal gun owners...are not the problem. Never have been and never will be. yet, every time mindless dumb-**** leftists get their gun control swag on who do they target? Law abiding citizens. Can YOU explain why those impotent leftist ****s dont target the criminals, thugs, and felons that are killing people on the daily?

Click to expand...

three reasons

gun control is almost always perpetrated by Democrats and liberals

1) its designed to pretend those groups are doing something about crime

when

2) the real goal is to harass political conservatives and the NRA for their voting patterns

without

3) really harming criminals who tend to be on the same political side as the anti gunners as are those who enable criminals

Visbek said:

Oh, wait. LEOs without military experience (i.e. most of them) have zero training with running an insurgency. Lots of vets will be older and/or injured. Younger vets will have firearms, but will need time to get organized, don't have artillery, don't have tanks, don't have military drones, don't have planes, don't have rockets, don't have missiles, and don't have unlimited ammunition. (Unless you think an invading army will let firearm and ammo factories do whatever they want. Of course, if they were genuinely worried about civilian insurgents, they'd knock those factories out ASAP.) Many rebels will have families, who will be jeopardized if connected to a resistance movement.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I'm a little dumbfounded by the extent you rationalize things. Asymmetrical warfare means artillery, tanks, planes.... all get minimized as threats. And you don't think that an insurgency would pick up guns and ammunition wherever it was found? You clearly picture military-style deployment, maneuver, and direct combat.... which is NOT how asymmetrical warfare works.

Visbek said:

I'm sorry, but I really can't take your claims seriously.

Click to expand...

Well, after reading through the nonsense you posted, I know for a fact I can't take YOUR claims seriously in any way, shape, or form. So, we'll just call it good and move on.

6gunner said:

I have to admit I'm a little dumbfounded by the extent you rationalize things. Asymmetrical warfare means artillery, tanks, planes.... all get minimized as threats. And you don't think that an insurgency would pick up guns and ammunition wherever it was found? You clearly picture military-style deployment, maneuver, and direct combat.... which is NOT how asymmetrical warfare works.




Well, after reading through the nonsense you posted, I know for a fact I can't take YOUR claims seriously in any way, shape, or form. So, we'll just call it good and move on.

Click to expand...

right you are. its a complete disconnect with reality. the normal argument we see is that the second only applies to the militia and it doesn't exist and thus the right doesn't exist.

Manc Skipper said:

Are you claiming that your risk doesn't increase?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. The benefits of owning a gun exceeds the risks of owning one or even a car statistically speaking.

A third of households have a gun, but Americans own half the civilian guns in the world. Paranoid or what? Three per cent of that third, own half the guns in the USA!

Click to expand...

And your point?

Maccabee said:

I'm saying that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. The benefits of owning a gun exceeds the risks of owning one or even a car statistically speaking.


And your point?

Click to expand...

Actually statistically they don't

VanceMack said:

No...indeed not. As a matter of fact, there are some 300 MILLION firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. And thats the point. Law abiding citizens...legal gun owners...are not the problem. Never have been and never will be. yet, every time mindless dumb-**** leftists get their gun control swag on who do they target? Law abiding citizens. Can YOU explain why those impotent leftist ****s dont target the criminals, thugs, and felons that are killing people on the daily?

Click to expand...

I think they know that they can't do a thing about THEIR guns,but if they piss and moan enough they can make it hard for us law abiding.

6gunner said:

I have to admit I'm a little dumbfounded by the extent you rationalize things. Asymmetrical warfare means artillery, tanks, planes.... all get minimized as threats. And you don't think that an insurgency would pick up guns and ammunition wherever it was found? You clearly picture military-style deployment, maneuver, and direct combat.... which is NOT how asymmetrical warfare works.

Click to expand...

:roll:

I'm well aware that in an asymmetric conflict, you don't have two forces meeting on the battlefield. That's the whole point.

Asymmetric warfare means that you have small band(s) of fighters who know they will be utterly decimated in that kind of open combat. Thus, the resort to guerrilla and terrorist tactics. Hit-and-run, blending into the populace, hiding in jungles and mountains, and so forth.

This does not magically render military resources inert. Those larger forces are what makes it possible to hold significant territory. Once an insurgency seizes territory, they become targets for bombs, tanks, infantry and so on. Usually they can only hold territory if it's an area that is difficult to leverage that superior military force, e.g. mountains and thick jungles. Those are also areas where resources are scarce, meaning they typically can't do much more than annoy the superior force, and hurt civilians.

I.e. What you're missing is that in the long run, insurgencies rarely win. They are very difficult to completely eradicate, and can cause a lot of grief for the civilians caught in the crossfire, but merely launching an insurgency hardly guarantees success.

vegas giants said:

Actually statistically they don't

Click to expand...

At the very very least, there are 50,000 cases per year of people defending themselves with a firearm. There are only roughly 30,000 firearm deaths and the same number of car deaths. Please show me how is that statistically incorrect.

Just a thought, one large Chinese (or pick your Nation) ICBM set off over Kansas, say about 300 miles up, not a major feat. Line of sight covers the entire US, which would put us all back into the 1800's. Sure we would strike back, but not in time to change the situation. No one has to invaded, we are dependent on our technology, 90% of Americans would be dead within a year.
Oh and if you have guns, you Will need them and if you do not you are going to really want one.
Now back to your discussion.........................

Maccabee said:

Off topic. Besides, if you act like a threat, don't be surprised if you're treated like one.

Click to expand...

Not at all...

Bodhisattva said:

Not at all...

Click to expand...

Not at all what?

vegas giants said:

Here is the problem. Its a common problem of many who are against gun control. They assume people for gun control want to ban all guns. That is just completely laughable. You can have guns.....and gun control

Click to expand...

Here is the problem

when you register those firearms.. as YOU Advocate for "its just a form"... then you would put the means to ban guns not only in the hands of our own government.. but into the hands of an occupying force as well.

Visbek said:

:roll:

I'm well aware that in an asymmetric conflict, you don't have two forces meeting on the battlefield. That's the whole point.

Asymmetric warfare means that you have small band(s) of fighters who know they will be utterly decimated in that kind of open combat. Thus, the resort to guerrilla and terrorist tactics. Hit-and-run, blending into the populace, hiding in jungles and mountains, and so forth.

This does not magically render military resources inert. Those larger forces are what makes it possible to hold significant territory. Once an insurgency seizes territory, they become targets for bombs, tanks, infantry and so on. Usually they can only hold territory if it's an area that is difficult to leverage that superior military force, e.g. mountains and thick jungles. Those are also areas where resources are scarce, meaning they typically can't do much more than annoy the superior force, and hurt civilians.

I.e. What you're missing is that in the long run, insurgencies rarely win. They are very difficult to completely eradicate, and can cause a lot of grief for the civilians caught in the crossfire, but merely launching an insurgency hardly guarantees success.

Click to expand...

What you are assuming is that it will always be asymmetric warfare. In many cases.. for example Vietnam.. a guerrilla warfare becomes more conventional as the guerrilla's gain allies from other countries.