Another Gun Control Thread

Post Reply New Topic

The current situation in Bombay is an excellent example of the dangers of civilian gun control. Notice that for all of it's terrorist attacks, attacks in Israel tend to be suicide bombings. That wasn't always so, the suicide bomb didn't really come to prominence till the mid-90's, and there is a reason for that. Before, terrorists would whip out Kalashnikovs and start spraying bullets everywhere, but they kept getting cut down by armed civilians or of duty military people before they could do much damage, this has been documented. The suicide bomb was a direct response to an armed populace reducing the effectiveness of terrorist attacks, and even now there are instances where a would be "martyr" has attempted to detonate a device, only to be shot down by his would be victims before he could set off his explosives. In this instance, the terrorists are willing to die for their cause, but in the case of the common crook, how many do you think would be willing to die for your wallet?

Is that really an important statistic? 80 million gun owners owning 215 million guns? Its not like anyone can use more than a couple at a time. Besides, anyone who owns anything often owns more than one example of that item. How many knives are there out there?
Isnt the number of bullets more important?

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 30 Nov 2008, 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Private gun ownership does not prevent invasion. It might have, 200 years ago, but its not going to make the grade these days.

I'm saying that the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant. How many of those are feasible for use in crimes? The number of gun owners is more relevant, but not much.

Widespread gun ownership does make invasion quite infeasible, as it would be difficult or impossible to subjugate a heavily armed citizenry.

The number of guns in circulation is relevant, because they are widespread enough that no gun control law will make them inaccessible. So even if it was believed that gun control is a good idea, it is not something that could realistically be implemented in America anytime in the foreseeable future.

I live in France, where NOBODY can have a gun.
Only policemen and Army can have some guns. You can also have a rifle for hunting (ah, French traditions), but it's really restricted and must be stored in a sealed case ; the key is at the hunting post.
And it is better that way, because we have very low criminality compared to United States.
You should prohibit guns for sale in USA, or at least restrict them, I think Obama will make a reform to restrict their usage.

Last edited by DarthMaxeuis on 28 Nov 2008, 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

I say strict rules and regulations must be put into place with the first one being no person from a foreign country shall be able to buy a gun in the united states unless the a citizen of the US at the time of purchase.

As someone who just lost their rights to a tyrannical majority, I'd think you wouldn't be so quick to infringe upon the liberties of others. If you actually read the law, you'd know that it's already nearly impossible for anyone but a US citizen to legally own a gun, non-citizens need something called a Resident Alien Firearms Permit, and I believe there currently is a freeze on them. I know here in Washington they will not issue them at all, I'm not sure about the rest of the country.

I'm glad you have such faith in the good intentions of your police and military, I mean I wouldn't be to concerned about the French army either, these are the people who couldn't even sink a GreenPeace boat properly. I'm also glad you have such faith in the sense of fair play that French crooks must possess, surely they wouldn't resort to such an unfair advantage as arming themselves among an unarmed society...




Forgive me if I give the opinions of French teenagers short shrift when it comes to recommendations for the internal policies of the United States, especially on the matter of guns. If France has low crime rates, I doubt it can be traced to it's strict gun control. Just like Japan, I'd wager a considerable sum that I could arm every person in Japan tomorrow and the crime rate wouldn't rise it all, it's just a different culture. The US is a melting pot unlike any other place in the world, we have a different culture with different requirements than anywhere else, and quite frankly it gets annoying when the same people going on about "American Arrogance" will in the same breath tell us what's best for our country. Especially when the topic is guns, a subject on which most people outside the US couldn't know less.

As far as Mr. Obama is concerned, notice that he didn't mention gun control at all during his campaign, except to distance himself from it. He knows better, and if they value their recent political gains, the Democratic party as a whole knows better too. I'm not so fanatical as to start in on the "vote from the rooftops" line, but I will say that any attempt by the Democrats to enact new gun control will bring people like me out of the woodwork en mass to vote them out of office. It would be the quickest way possible to bring the Republicans back to power, and they have to know it, so I wouldn't count on any new restrictions from the Obama White house.

No it doesn't. Are you seriously suggesting that private weaponholders (legal ones) could prevent a full force military invasion by a foreign nation?

Lets assume for a moment that your standing military has been neutralised (and I include your reserve and national guard units as "standing".. ie those with proper military training and access to a military budget.) Lets assume its an ex-eastern bloc nation. You have a gun, or maybe several guns. There's a Hind squadron coming over the horizon, supported by an armoured division in BMPs, with Tank support. Fast Movers cross the sky overhead.. what the f**k are you going to do about it? Fire three rounds then get buried in your own house as the nearest tank shells you into oblivion.

Does anyone in the USA privately own a large enough stock of Javelins to shoot down even a handful of Assault Helicopters? Is there a booming trade in 57mm AAA guns that nobody knows about? Do you even have access to RPGs?

The fact that you might own anything up to an assault rifle DOES NOT mean you have the skills, training, or logistical support to even begin to fight any half assed military force that might show up. You would die if you tried.

And dont you think that the evil invader that already bested your conventional military is going to find and use all those logs and lists of private gun owners to track you down?

There are plenty of illegal guns in France, because they come through France to get to the UK, where there are shedloads of them.

1st point: It's not about action after the fact of invasion, it's about prevention beforehand. Guerrilla warfare is not about attacking your enemies front, you hit them in the rear, in supposedly safe areas. Attack supply convoys, blow up barracks of sleeping soldiers, assassinate officers. Whatever it takes to destroy enemy morale, that's far more important than stacking up a bunch of dead bodies. Any potential enemy knows this, and thereby would be prevented from invading by the fact that it can happen.

2nd point: There are thousands of former military officers and NCOs in this country, many of them are gun owners. They would make up the core of any resistance movement, its leaders. You don't need much training to fight, you just need to know how to shoot straight and follow orders.

3rd point: Any gun owners with half an ounce of sense would decamp to the hills the second a foreign army set boots on US soil. Some would be caught, but there are 85 million gun owners in this country, even a tenth of a tenth of that would make the most formidable guerrilla army in history.

I'm not saying that resistance would be easy, it wouldn't be. tens of thousands would die on our side, but we would win

You're making a lot of bad assumptions here, but to humor you I'll indulge some of them. OK, so let's so the US military, including state national guards, no longer exists. Reservists who were not on duty are still around (why wouldn't they be? they aren't part of the standing military), there's tons of those guys. There's also a bunch of veterans who have prior military training and were not destroyed with the active military. And quite a few Americans are highly skilled with guns despite having no explicit military training. It's part of our culture, something you would not understand. But no military budget, and lackluster organization if any exists. Now, will every gun owner in isolation face off against a tank squadron? Pray tell, what military in the world has that kind of numbers or supplies? In order to actually conquer the country, you would need to have a military presence on the ground, and any troops will get gunned down. If not by veterans like Fnord, then by people like Dox47. Or by the local trailer trash. Illiterate hillbillies do have some skills, and those generally include exceptional marksmanship. It really is not feasible to conquer a nation of 300 million people that spans a continent when there is armed opposition everywhere. No conceivable military force has the ability to do that, especially not with the stretched out supply lines that would be necessary.

As far as an invading military using lists of gun owners to track them down... it would be a logistical nightmare. And they wouldn't get a chance to do it anyways. Who owned guns would be obvious enough: they're the ones who are shooting at you.

Oh, that is just...awesome

Somehow I doubt it. Why would private gun ownership prevent invasion? Its hardly a deterrent. And "half an ounce of sense"? How many gun owners are actually survivalist types? How many of them are just women who don't want to get raped, execs sick of getting mugged, scholars with collectibles, and other such "non-combatant" owners? (These being the same people least likely to get caught up in crime, as it happens.)

You have no privately owned ordnance that would make a force strong enough to defeat your military balk, and you certainly don't all have the almost psychotic death-or-freedom mindset that made Afghanistan a nightmare, Vietnam one big trap, or Japan one long potential Banzai. There are some with the skills and ability to make themselves an awful nuisance to an occupying force, but certainly not enough to ever hope to defeat an armed force by conventional means.

Armed resistance has a romantic edge to it in the states. Given your past, its understandable. But guerrilla warfare is unromantic, miserable, and usually ends up with a vast amount of collateral damage. Ask the French (on both sides).

We are talking about an invading force that has neutralised the largest standing military in the world. I think its safe to say that your reservists would all be long dead, having been called up to fight.

And don't be so arrogant as to claim that I "couldn't possibly understand your culture". Vast numbers of your gun owning population DO NOT have military or survival skills. Fact. Vast numbers of your population fullstop do not have those requisite skills.