Gun control

ObservantBastard_sl said:

Useless chart is useless.

Click to expand...

I partially agree it certainty isn't much. But as far as I can tell Utah is handing out the data.

Selix_sl said:

So what you are saying is that if our modern military is willing to use force against its citizens that we will be able to beat them?

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe the current US military would not have a chance in hell of pacifying the entire US if somehow our entire government turned into a tyranny (not that I believe that will happen anyway). We couldn't pacify Iraq without local help. The US military would be in an even worse shape against its own citizens. You would have defections left and right and an eve more armed populace in a much larger country.

Also,[email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName('script'),e=t.length;e--if(t[e].getAttribute('data-cfhash'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute('data-cfemail')){for(e='',r='0x'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+='%'+('0'+('0x'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */mentioning nukes in relation to a guerilla warfare scenario.

khalid_sl said:

Yes, I believe the current US military would not have a chance in hell of pacifying the entire US if somehow our entire government turned into a tyranny (not that I believe that will happen anyway). We couldn't pacify Iraq without local help. The US military would be in an even worse shape against its own citizens. You would have defections left and right and an eve more armed populace in a much larger country.

Also,[email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName('script'),e=t.length;e--if(t[e].getAttribute('data-cfhash'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute('data-cfemail')){for(e='',r='0x'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+='%'+('0'+('0x'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */mentioning nukes in relation to a guerilla warfare scenario.

Click to expand...

I see you didn't bother to read all of the steps. Let me point out the relevent one that concerns your post

3. If the government is willing to use force and the military is split on using force then..
- c. If not a or b then he who convinces a or b to back their side wins
---- *. Same goes for convincing the military if they are not already a or b


Also note the "willing to use them" part of a and b.

(please note the below is as opposed to just owning small arms/hunting rifles)

If you take the argument you are using and follow the steps I listed then you will be able to point out where I am being inconsistent. That would make this process much faster as we would be able to get right to the meat of the issue which I believe is "If the military were wiling to use force in backing the government thatcivilians owning military grade weaponswould be the deciding or even relevant factor (please note this is as opposed to just owning small arms/hunting rifles) in deciding who wins the outcome of such a war.

(please note this is as opposed to just owning small arms/hunting rifles)

Blakkheim_sl said:

This blog post is quite possibly the most epic and thorough beat down I've ever seen of the gun grabber morons.

Take some time to read it and send it on to others:

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry...e-and-for-all/

Click to expand...

My favorite part

"So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America?http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htmOf those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let?s not go with the high estimate. Let?s go with some smaller ones instead. Let?s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let?s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Doesn?t matter. I don?t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country."

Selix_sl said:

I see you didn't bother to read all of the steps. Let me point out the relevent one that concerns your post

3. If the government is willing to use force and the military is split on using force then..
- c. If not a or b then he who convinces a or b to back their side wins
---- *. Same goes for convincing the military if they are not already a or b


Also note the "willing to use them" part of a and b.

(please note the below is as opposed to just owning small arms/hunting rifles)

If you take the argument you are using and follow the steps I listed then you will be able to point out where I am being inconsistent. That would make this process much faster as we would be able to get right to the meat of the issue which I believe is "If the military were wiling to use force in backing the government thatcivilians owning military grade weaponswould be the deciding or even relevant factor (please note this is as opposed to just owning small arms/hunting rifles) in deciding who wins the outcome of such a war.

(please note this is as opposed to just owning small arms/hunting rifles)

Click to expand...

Small arms are everything up to and including small caliber machine guns. A good delineation is probably at .50 caliber. And yes, the populace having assault rifles will make a difference over and above just bolt action rifles and revolvers. Look at the rest of the world. Flooded with AKs, any organization, good or bad, that wants to go into some shithole has to make a concerted effort to sweep the populace and remove as many as possible. Even then it requires the best militaries in the world get help from some of the local populace to make a dent and reduce the violence.

ObservantBastard_sl said:

Small arms are everything up to and including small caliber machine guns. A good delineation is probably at .50 caliber. And yes, the populace having assault rifles will make a difference over and above just bolt action rifles and revolvers. Look at the rest of the world. Flooded with AKs, any organization, good or bad, that wants to go into some shithole has to make a concerted effort to sweep the populace and remove as many as possible. Even then it requires the best militaries in the world get help from some of the local populace to make a dent and reduce the violence.

Click to expand...

Just so I am absolutely clear before I respond to this you are saying that in this scenario our military would be willing to use violence against its own citizens? And that even though they would be willing that an armed US populace would be able to stop them?

I need to be absolutely clear on this distinction because if you are NOT saying this and instead you are (for example) saying that our military would be split at best (in which I would agree would be the most likely scenario) then I would point out that I already answered that with step quoted below (again).

3. If the government is willing to use force and the military is split on using force then..
- c. If not a or b then he who convinces a or b to back their side wins
---- *. Same goes for convincing the military if they are not already a or b


Also note the "willing to use them" part of a and b.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to be so nuanced but there are massive differences in this discussion based which point you are making.

The fuck is a yard in this context? An idiot? Google didn't return anything useful.

Beef Supreme_sl said:

I would imagine the coroner can tell pretty easily as .223 does very different things to the human body over 9mm and .45. Plus, you know, the bullets themselves, the ones lodged inside the bodies, will confirm whether or not he used .223 on them rather than handgun cartridges. Also, seeing as its a Bushy, and those fuckers are almost all 1in9 twist, he was likely using 50-52gr bullets which tumble like a motherfucker once they penetrate the human body.

Now, did he actually use the Bushy? Should be enough residue on the BCG to determine whether or not it was used or just present.

Fun stuff.

Click to expand...

Or you could just look at whether the shell casings that must be all over are rifle or hangun. Derp.

Agraza_sl said:

The fuck is a yard in this context? An idiot? Google didn't return anything useful.

Click to expand...

If tou look carefullt at tour ketboard, tou will noyice the y and t kets are righy nexy yo one anoyher

Selix_sl said:

Just so I am absolutely clear before I respond to this you are saying that in this scenario our military would be willing to use violence against its own citizens? And that even though they would be willing that an armed US populace would be able to stop them?

I need to be absolutely clear on this distinction because if you are NOT saying this and instead you are (for example) saying that our military would be split at best (in which I would agree would be the most likely scenario) then I would point out that I already answered that with step quoted below (again).



I am sorry to be so nuanced but there are massive differences in this discussion based which point you are making.

Click to expand...

How are you not getting this? There are real life examples going on right fucking now. Look at Syria. Assad has tanks and planes, bombs and missiles, and aherp derp, he's using them on his populace. What's the only thing that is allowing the resistance to even stand a chance of uniting and putting up a fight long enough to get more people on their side? You guessed it buddy, small arms in the hands of the populace...

Big Phoenix_sl said:

..also wonder how legit the whole thing is, as I dont know who the fuck would trade in a two or three thousand dollar gun for a $200 gift card)....
Also love how LA's retarded police chief thinks hes holding a rocket launcher, just goes to show how uneducated and misinformed cops are about anything related to firearms.

Click to expand...

the launcher is clearly marker trainer in some other pics. Always assume that many of the guns are stolen and what i gather they don't even run serial numbers to check.
reportedly the guy that turned in tan-black rifle in the 2nd pic did so to appease a family member who lost someone in a shooting recently. he has other guns, but that is the only one they knew about or something.
some people just end up with guns they don't like/want and don't want to put them in the hands of other people. which i can understand in this day and age. hell, i am pretty sure i would not sale a gun to a complete stranger now and $200 is more than you would get for 75% of those weapons if selling to a gun or pawn shop.

Beef Supreme_sl said:

I would imagine the coroner can tell pretty easily as .223 does very different things to the human body over 9mm and .45. Plus, you know, the bullets themselves, the ones lodged inside the bodies, will confirm whether or not he used .223 on them rather than handgun cartridges. Also, seeing as its a Bushy, and those fuckers are almost all 1in9 twist, he was likely using 50-52gr bullets which tumble like a motherfucker once they penetrate the human body.

Now, did he actually use the Bushy? Should be enough residue on the BCG to determine whether or not it was used or just present.

Fun stuff.

Click to expand...

I'm 99% sure it was some 55 or 62 gr milsurp ammo, which is pretty poor for wound trauma. But against 50lb kids a .22 LR would have been just as effective.

speaking of CA
California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

ObservantBastard_sl said:

How are you not getting this? There are real life examples going on right fucking now. Look at Syria. Assad has tanks and planes, bombs and missiles, and aherp derp, he's using them on his populace. What's the only thing that is allowing the resistance to even stand a chance of uniting and putting up a fight long enough to get more people on their side? You guessed it buddy, small arms in the hands of the populace...

Click to expand...

The defection of a sizable portion of the Syrian Army? You do realize that is what happened right?

Ko Dokomo_sl said:

The defection of asizable portionof the Syrian Army? You do realize that is what happened right?

Click to expand...

Mischaracterizarion ftw!

Free Syrian Army

Formed months after protests and armed clashes started, consists of ex soldiers and civilians alike. Even still the soldiers defected with, GASP, small arms!!!

The Free Syrian Army is mainly armed with AK-47s, DShKs and RPG-7s.[62] As defecting soldiers lack air cover, deserting soldiers have to abandon their armoured vehicles. Soldiers defect carrying only their army issued light arms and hide in cities, suburbs or the cover of the countryside.[17] Besides AK-47s, some FSA soldiers also have M16s, Steyr AUGs, FN FALs, shotguns,[63] G3 Battle Rifles,[64] and PK machine guns.[65]

Click to expand...

ObservantBastard_sl said:

How are you not getting this? There are real life examples going on right fucking now. Look at Syria. Assad has tanks and planes, bombs and missiles, and aherp derp, he's using them on his populace. What's the only thing that is allowing the resistance to even stand a chance of uniting and putting up a fight long enough to get more people on their side? You guessed it buddy, small arms in the hands of the populace...

Click to expand...

Ok since you didn't answer this directly I am just going to quote it and assume this is your position until you say otherwise. As I stated before there are massive differences in this discussion based on which position you take otherwise I wouldn't bother with the clarification.

Just so I am absolutely clear before I respond to this you are saying that in this scenario our military would be willing to use violence against its own citizens? And that even though they would be willing that an armed US populace would be able to stop them?

Click to expand...

I have repeatedly and specifically mentioned the US military instead of other militaries of the world because they are not comparable to the US military. The US spends more on defense the the next 14 countries combined. We have the most advanced tech in every field. Now in comparison to the Syrian army there is this list onwiki. This is most defiantly an out of date and inaccurate list but even wildly inaccurate it is still laughable compared to the US military.

What this means in the context of civil war the United States is that Syria is a much as example of what a civil war would look like in the United States as if two local towns in Texas decided to rise up and fight each other.

For example what would the guerilla warfare look like in Syria if they had access to the huge numbers of drones with precision guided missiles and trained personnel that we do?Hint.

Or the ability to sit off shore and send cruise missiles anywhere they wanted? Or hell just use aircraft. And let us just keep ignoring nuclear weapons as any civil war in the United States would never have either side willing to use nuclear weapons. Of course if that is untrue for even 1 person who has control or might be convinced to support one side then that side wins.

pretty sure whatever major scenario you think up, US military will loose 25% of its troops off the top. US bases are not defensible forts either.