If guns were made illegal everywhere.

Post Reply New Topic

My favorite Art of War quote is: No country ever benefited from a protracted war.

Think about what would happen in the US if suddenly the military was commanded to fight its own people. I mean, who do you think joins the military? You're telling them to fight their own families, and ultimately you're going to have more soldiers unwilling to fight their own just as a matter of conscience. Once the military sides with the people, it's game over.

Besides, everyone knows that diplomacy always wins over war with the least amount of cost of human lives for both sides. You're talking about a situation that couldn't happen in the US given our present status quo. The US has the advantage over the countries you mentioned because it has a regularly scheduled government change every few years at all levels. The US we have now under Obama is not the same US we had under Bush, and it won't be the same US if Romney wins the next election.

The US never lost the war in Vietnam. The people within the US who supported the war lost the war against those within the US who opposed it. We lost southeast Asia because we gave up on Vietnam.

Suppose we never got involved in Vietnam. Diem's people were fighting for control of home as you put it. How would Diem's government and fighting forces responded differently to defeat without us than they did with us? Remember, there were two sides to Vietnam. It wasn't as if Vietnam became a communist nation overnight and the US came in with guns blazing and added Saigon as a territory of the US and made all the locals speak English. Our involvement began back in the 1950s, Kennedy had considered withdrawing troops during his administration, his VP screwed it up, and it was a long road full of foolish policies that led us to Nixon. Nixon could read the writing on the wall, but at least he gave it an honest try.

Besides, we experienced this same exact thing in the US with our own civil war. If the South had simply held their own ground rather than trying to overreach and gain territory in the North, they would have had a shot of at least buying themselves time to devise and implement a realistic war plan and win decisive victories against an invading Northern army. As brilliant a commander as Lee was, he fumbled by getting distracted by the Gettysburg skirmish when he already had a realizable plan for attack elsewhere. You can't win a war without setting achievable goals and sticking to a plan for achieving them. The US plan for Vietnam? Support the Diem government. Seriously, what kind of plan was that?

All the southern commanders had to do was stand their ground, wait for an invading northern army, and flank 'em. That's just common sense. WWII Germany frequently used the same defensive tactic to great effect.

If you're dealing with guerrilla warfare, especially at home, you have the same problem as with Vietnam--difficulty in identifying and eliminating the enemy, especially when the enemy is your own people. Tanks and planes do no good if you don't know who to shell or bomb. We have no need for counter-insurgency forces stateside--but exactly how do you deploy if you ever needed to? Tanks and planes be damned... If you have an invisible insurgency picking off soldiers on the ground one at a time, there will ultimately be such loss of life on both sides that pretty soon there aren't even going to BE people left to operate tanks and planes. Further, you have National Guard troops who know how to operate choppers, fighter planes, and tanks. You get enough of those guys to sympathize with the insurgency, together with vets with experience who can train new recruits, you have a reasonable chance at fighting counter-insurgency forces equipped with tanks and planes. Gain control over a Boeing or Lockheed plant and you've got your own air support so you can take out the infrastructure of the current government. Not only that, but given that the US has so many enemies abroad, it shouldn't take much to get support from foreign countries, especially if you have terrorist cells looking for an excuse to fight. Imagine if we started getting our training from al-Quaeda. They only lost their effectiveness after they got our attention, but consider the long run that they DID have.

Something like Vietnam COULD realistically happen stateside if something were to go terribly wrong. Hanoi was willing to hold out as long as they could; they had the Cong on their side; they fought an enemy that didn't have clear objectives or even a plan for winning the war; they gave up territory ONLY after inflicting more human cost on the enemy than the objectives were worth (see "Hamburger Hill"); they had endless support from sympathetic superpowers (Russia and China). And, thing is, the American forces actually were superior to anything they had available. Even if all the soldiers were conscripts, they still were better equipped and had superior air support. Hanoi was just able to wait us out, and the cost of human life relative to the length of time the war dragged on, the American people simply just could not justify keeping it going. Both sides lost that war. Getting rid of Diem might possibly be the only good thing that came of it; it just wasn't worth the lives lost.

The worst part is it all could have been prevented.

That kind of thing just isn't going to happen in the US. But guerrilla warfare against plains and tanks in the US? It could happen. I don't realistically think you're going to get rid of our government structure through another protracted civil war. Nor would you want to--love Obama and the Democrats or hate them, our system works probably better than any other system out there. But if we were forced back into guerrilla warfare against our own, either the government would be changed or at least soundly beaten into submission. You just have to be intelligent as to how you deal with a superior threat.

Attacker wants to surprise you and uses as much force as needed. If he thinks you may have gun, he prepares for it and gives you no chance. There are tactics for guerilla warfare saying if you want a gun, you simply ambush the police/army and steal them. It is not so hard to do. Yet it's rare, because there are plenty of cheap guns so who would bother.

Or take a look at security guards with guns in many banks. So what? Nobody robs them? No way. They simply use more force, more planing, more surprise. And guards? They are ordered not to use guns and deal with situation peacefully! Bank does not care about few thousands being stolen. But dead/wounded customer? Thats the nightmare.



Do you think government is stupid? Governments fight their own people all the time and you don't even notice it. Propaganda works like charm. They would never fight against "ordinary" people. They always fight agains crime, terrorism, anarchism, communism or anything you want. Government governs, not people. People obey. If not, people become criminals, terrorists, rebels and any other nice words. Circle has closed.


Ask any foreigner if US is not the same D No change at all. If anything changes, you would notice at stock marked first. If stock marked has no worries it means nothing happend

Exactly: They will, for the most part, leave the guns at home and use IEDs and suicide bombers.

I don't mind at all the responsible, law-abiding people being able to purchase and use their guns in any way they see fit. My husband has two shotguns.

What I do mind is the person who shot out my windshield while my car was parked in my driveway right next to my house having a gun, and the very unwise person who was probably drunk who said he was shooting at "a raccoon on his roof" right next door to me--less than 10 yards from my son's bedroom window. He could maybe get away with this in the country, but this was in a heavily populated area. BTW, this is not the same person who shot my car--the car incident happened before the raccoon shooter moved in. Oh, and the dips who shoot guns into the air on New Year's Eve, I guess thinking the bullet is going to keep going up forever.

Uh, no, most sensible people would swallow their pride and protest like the rest of us. Now the irrational dumbasses who erect a bullet-proof window between them and society and start shooting and foaming at the mouth, the would-be-modern-day equivalent of people who tried to make booze in their bathtubs during the prohibition, will be the "new class of criminal."


That saying makes no sense whatsoever to me.

And I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. People who are opposed to having guns now won't buy guns to protect their families. The only people who have guns are people who want guns.


I'm aware of it; I did not say that most of them lived in rural areas, I said that most of them


Guns are intended to cause bodily harm. Cars are not. [And I'd prefer it if we had a functioning public transportation system in and between suburbs anyways, since it would make trains and buses useful.]


Yes, making strawman arguments is very easy.

Well, once again the gun haters have had their fair chance to bring something valid to the table to support their beliefs but have failed.
All I've seen from them is delusional ranting and the expected ad hominem tidbits tossed in for flair.
This concludes my involvement in this thread since it's going nowhere.

I like to remind people of that as well. We kicked the ever living s**t out of the VC in Vietnam and only lost because they were willing to lose WAY more men than we were and they knew it.

But, the whole point of the question was, hypothetically, if the military was loyal and was going to be fighting civilians, the civilians would have no chance, even with all the pistols, shotguns, and rifles in the world. They would NEED military defectors.

Aaaand......if our democratic system is so effective, would we ever NEED to resist the government with weapons?



Oh stuff it mate. You barely tried to debate me, and ran off crying troll when I put a comment in a slightly-below-polite way while you were focusing debating people outright trolling and flaming instead. You scared someone with half a brain will make you out to be a fool? Come back into the ring with me, if you have the balls.

Actually in Vietnam, part of it was the home-field advantage, though they were definitely more willing to lose men. Not to mention back home in the USA people were protesting - bad for morale - and eventually broke through with the whole "This is inhumane and not going anywhere useful."

Though yeah, Raptor seems to be conversing with Mr. Strawman Johnson.

True. But successful guerilla warfare is not about soldiers. It is mostly about civilians and their support. If they favor insurgents, their chances increase dramatically. And in Vietnam, not only there was communist north, but south too. Many south Vietnamese were against US. That's what decided. You can't win in country that hates you. Afghanistan is another example.

Some of these arguments are ridiculous. Guns are used successfully for self-defense every day. Google News search for "Burglar shot"

If I'm understanding it right some people think that the argument that the populace should be armed to be able to overthrow a corrupt government is invalid because the government has better weapons? In what revolution has the government not had better weapons in the beginning?

There are more guns in the US than any other part of the world.
There is more gun violence in the US than any part of the world.
There was a shooting in Toronto last month because people have been getting guns from the US. I do not wish for Canada to become just like the US.
I hate guns. I hate how testosterone-ravaged males think they are "cool"
I think the excuse that "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". is utter garbage.
Even when people are allowed to have guns, they get killed by guns anyway.
END. OF. STORY.

My eyes are burning; either it's the testosterone leaking into my eyes or the massive stupidity of the message above.

Mack27 - if you wear hearing protectors and then activate one big sirene, your antiburgler effectiveness yould be hundred times better than with gun. But try to slaughter someone with it... Get it?

Well the siren certainly could make it easier to shoot the intruder.

With the revolving door prison system here, ex-cons with no job prospects are getting dumped on the street after serving a tiny fraction of their sentence. Between their personal experience and the information they shared in jail, they know how the alarm systems work and have non-confrontational burglaries down to a science. If someone is bold enough to rob you when you are home, you are going to need more than an alarm in these parts.

lostonearth35 wrote:

Probably so and it’s a fact I take pride in as an American but you wouldn’t understand.


Houla massacre in Syria - 108 dead.
Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan – 187 -1500 dead depending on who’s report to believe.
Algerian massacres of the 1990's - Thousands killed.


I have two guns that were made in Canada and ended up here in the US. Shame on you naughty Canadians for sending us guns!


As opposed to estrogen-ravaged females (and some males) that think guns are “icky”?


You might think it’s “garbage” but it’s the only logical outcome. Deny it or downplay it all you want but Canada has quite a gun culture itself.


Wut????