The "guns are awesome" thread

[Jenos Ridan]

i don't own a gun, and probably never will, however there are several reasons that i wish to have the right to
1. i may want to go hunting. innocent enough (well, to most people anyways)
2. for fun/sport, again innocent enough just shooting at targets and such
3. to protect myself and my loved ones
4. because otherwise it's just one more instance of the government telling me to do
5. because, if i see the need to, i would like the ability to violently overthrow my government. this would be difficult without a gun

All of those, except for number 5, don't require what I like to call "crazy guns", like assault rifles, or a .50 cal sniper rifle. Besides, it's not like you can beat the standing army's tanks and bazookas with an assault rifle anyway.

Well, certainly not head on. Ever hear of Guerrilla Warfare? Che Guevara wrote a short manual on the topic.

[Frigidus]

i don't own a gun, and probably never will, however there are several reasons that i wish to have the right to
1. i may want to go hunting. innocent enough (well, to most people anyways)
2. for fun/sport, again innocent enough just shooting at targets and such
3. to protect myself and my loved ones
4. because otherwise it's just one more instance of the government telling me to do
5. because, if i see the need to, i would like the ability to violently overthrow my government. this would be difficult without a gun

All of those, except for number 5, don't require what I like to call "crazy guns", like assault rifles, or a .50 cal sniper rifle. Besides, it's not like you can beat the standing army's tanks and bazookas with an assault rifle anyway.

Well, certainly not head on. Ever hear of Guerrilla Warfare? Che Guevara wrote a short manual on the topic.

Guerrilla Warfare doesn't work when fighting your own government. If a country ever gets bad enough that such steps would be required, the completely corrupted government would simply exterminate the populations of any guerrilla hot spots.

[pimpdave]

Well, certainly not head on. Ever hear of Guerrilla Warfare? Che Guevara wrote a short manual on the topic.

Yeah, I've even read it.

But then, I have to wonder what the people at Wounded Knee thought? Especially since they had already fucking surrendered. Or Ruby Ridge, or at the Branch Davidian Compound.

There has not been successful guerrilla warfare waged in the USA since the war fought to earn our independence (and in a few before then), so good luck with that.

[Jenos Ridan]

Answer: responcibility.

No no no. The answer is destroying all really big cities and eradicating the poor people.

I take it you do not believe that hard-working, upright men and women exist?

Oh I believe they do exist. It's just that the only way to make sure guns don't bring problems is getting rid of the areas where guns are a problem because having guns freely available in those areas increase crime.

If the crime-raising factors are eliminated and the community is tight-knit with plenty of social control over eachother (people paying attention to what other people do) then guns aren't a problem. But if none of that happens then having guns avialable is very bad.

I see you've had an encounter with my old buddy Thor. Thor isn't his real name though, but out of courtesy I'll let him keep his annonimity.

[Jenos Ridan]

i don't own a gun, and probably never will, however there are several reasons that i wish to have the right to
1. i may want to go hunting. innocent enough (well, to most people anyways)
2. for fun/sport, again innocent enough just shooting at targets and such
3. to protect myself and my loved ones
4. because otherwise it's just one more instance of the government telling me to do
5. because, if i see the need to, i would like the ability to violently overthrow my government. this would be difficult without a gun

All of those, except for number 5, don't require what I like to call "crazy guns", like assault rifles, or a .50 cal sniper rifle. Besides, it's not like you can beat the standing army's tanks and bazookas with an assault rifle anyway.

Well, certainly not head on. Ever hear of Guerrilla Warfare? Che Guevara wrote a short manual on the topic.

Guerrilla Warfare doesn't work when fighting your own government. If a country ever gets bad enough that such steps would be required, the completely corrupted government would simply exterminate the populations of any guerrilla hot spots.

Then why did we lose Cuba to Castro?

[Frigidus]

i don't own a gun, and probably never will, however there are several reasons that i wish to have the right to
1. i may want to go hunting. innocent enough (well, to most people anyways)
2. for fun/sport, again innocent enough just shooting at targets and such
3. to protect myself and my loved ones
4. because otherwise it's just one more instance of the government telling me to do
5. because, if i see the need to, i would like the ability to violently overthrow my government. this would be difficult without a gun

All of those, except for number 5, don't require what I like to call "crazy guns", like assault rifles, or a .50 cal sniper rifle. Besides, it's not like you can beat the standing army's tanks and bazookas with an assault rifle anyway.

Well, certainly not head on. Ever hear of Guerrilla Warfare? Che Guevara wrote a short manual on the topic.

Guerrilla Warfare doesn't work when fighting your own government. If a country ever gets bad enough that such steps would be required, the completely corrupted government would simply exterminate the populations of any guerrilla hot spots.

Then why did we lose Cuba to Castro?

Because we aren't ruthless. Ok, let me rephrase. Guerrilla warfare works against a military that has humanitarian boundaries but fails against one that doesn't. If the US ever gets to the point that its own people are in revolution it would have to have one fucked up government. Considering the lack of restraint we've shown against the "terrorist" populations of the Middle East I somehow doubt that a evil version of ourselves would have any qualms massacring its people.

Edit: I also don't recall sending our army into Cuba. It was more like sending some untrained refugees into Cuba.

[Jenos Ridan]

Well, certainly not head on. Ever hear of Guerrilla Warfare? Che Guevara wrote a short manual on the topic.

Yeah, I've even read it.

But then, I have to wonder what the people at Wounded Knee thought? Especially since they had already fucking surrendered. Or Ruby Ridge, or at the Branch Davidian Compound.

There has not been successful guerrilla warfare waged in the USA since the war fought to earn our independence (and in a few before then), so good luck with that.

That is because, when you look at the examples you set forth, we see none of them had a clue what they were doing.

Wounded Knee: the Indians surrendered, but someone mistook an action as hostile and opened fire.

Ruby Ridge: the moron thought he could fend them off and so he hunkered down when he should have ran into the wilderness and stayed mobile.

Branch Davidians: David Kerech(sp?) didn't know diddly about war plus he was a nutjob. Probably figured that if he set it all ablaze he'd ignite some sort of holy war against the federal government. Again, he should have fled to someplace like the Rockies or a similar area, where the terrain is difficult for large bodies of men and vehicals and there conduct hit-and-run attacks and ambushes, never establishing a fixed base and staying mobile.

But in the case of the revolution, it was not all guerilla warfare. The Continental Army often, to limited sucess at first, engaged the British head on, especially from Trenton onwards to Yorktown. General Washington wanted officers experienced in the European method of war, mostly because none of his troops had any battle experience or training. Enter Baron von Steuben, who gave the early US Army it's first drill manual and with it the phrase "doing it by the numbers".

The best examples of true guerilla warfare are in Latin America, were Che got all of his experience in the matter.

Vietnam is not a good example because the VC were supplied, materially and not just financially, by the Soviets and Red China.

Neither is Afghanistan, for when the Soviets were fighting it, they could very well have won had we not gave the Afghans the Stinger missile that downed so many MIL Mi-24s.

Again, neither are the current conflicts in Iraq and in Israel. Hamas likes to tell the world "we violate the Koranic injunction against suicide because we have no other options", which is both a lie and quite simply stupid.

The same could almost be said about Vietnam, save that it was a matter of MacNamara's "Brillient" decisions and those of his "Wizkids", some of whom thought that since the M-16 didn't come with a crome-plated barrel it didn't need one. Same bunch of drooling morons who allowed the rifles to be issued without cleaning kits as a COST SAVING MEASURE! Anybody who owns a gun should have clue one that not been able to regularly clean a gun is a bad thing, especially when you take into account the damp jungle environment, the type of powder used in the cartridge and the rate of fire (damp environment + ball powder - regular cleaning = tragic failure) of the weapon in question.

Bringing this rant to a close, guerilla campaigns, if properly executed from start to finish, can be effective. However, to address a specific point in more detail:

Guerrilla Warfare doesn't work when fighting your own government. If a country ever gets bad enough that such steps would be required, the completely corrupted government would simply exterminate the populations of any guerrilla hot spots.

1) All Guerilla wars are conducted inside of a nation against the national regime, much like how a civil war is conducted against one part from another.

2) Which seals the oppressive regime's fate, as they just lost the support of wide tracts of the population that was borderline if even nominally supportive. In truth, any region is a hotspot, 'though some more than others.

The best way to deal with guerillas is to make them fight you on your terms. In the case of conventional, regular forces (as opposide to the irregular forces which guerillas fail into the catagory of), this means forcing them to go toe-to-toe with you, where your forces will have all the advantages of firepower, local superiority of numbers, mobilty, etc.

I hope my ranting has either been entertaining or enlightening.

[Jenos Ridan]

Because we aren't ruthless. Ok, let me rephrase. Guerrilla warfare works against a military that has humanitarian boundaries but fails against one that doesn't. If the US ever gets to the point that its own people are in revolution it would have to have one fucked up government. Considering the lack of restraint we've shown against the "terrorist" populations of the Middle East I somehow doubt that a evil version of ourselves would have any qualms massacring its people.

Edit: I also don't recall sending our army into Cuba. It was more like sending some untrained refugees into Cuba.

The Bay of Pigs is what you are thinking. And the CIA trained them, is it any wonder why it failed? Those spooks should've stuck to what they were good at, getting Intel; leave the hard work to the fighting men.

Also, if send situation is the case, short of nuking the entire nation to glowing cinders, there is little that can be done; all the guerillas have already fled the urban areas and the open country for the hard country of the Rockies and such like. Places like the Olympic National Forest, though small, offer the sort of terrain that guerillas need to base themselves in. The old saying "an army marches on it's stomach" is true here too, except the guerilla feeds on his enemy; he kills the enemy soldier and strips him bare. Sometimes literally, but at least making off with a full load of ammo, a new rifle and sidearm, a new set of clothes, some food and new boots.

This is how the guerillas of Latin America have operated since the 50's and 60's, and most of those countries are rather small and not as populated as the US. Take into account all the vast, as yet largely uninhabited portions of the western US, and we have the right geography. All it takes is the right stimuli and off the fire goes.

[Snorri1234]

Answer: responcibility.

No no no. The answer is destroying all really big cities and eradicating the poor people.

I take it you do not believe that hard-working, upright men and women exist?

Oh I believe they do exist. It's just that the only way to make sure guns don't bring problems is getting rid of the areas where guns are a problem because having guns freely available in those areas increase crime.

If the crime-raising factors are eliminated and the community is tight-knit with plenty of social control over eachother (people paying attention to what other people do) then guns aren't a problem. But if none of that happens then having guns avialable is very bad.

I see you've had an encounter with my old buddy Thor. Thor isn't his real name though, but out of courtesy I'll let him keep his annonimity.

Oh yeah I got it. I just like arguing with him regardless.

[Jenos Ridan]

Oh yeah I got it. I just like arguing with him regardless.

The depressing part is, so does he. And in his mind, you can never win.

That, apart from his "beliefs", is why I don't associate much with him anymore. Old buddy, as in used to be, before he got unhinged.

[Ray Rider]

80 people per day die and twice that number are seriously injured from guns in the USA, no other leading nation has figures that remotely compare with this . Gun ownership is deeply imbedded in the American physche and is unlikely to change but how is it anything to be proud of

Took a look at that site.

The vast majority of those are murders and suicides. If a guy is bent on killing someone else or himself, he's gonna do it. The fact that he couldn't legally buy a gun wouldn't stop him at all.

Hurray 2nd amendment! *joins Juan in gun-firing celebration.

Ok so your view is that these ' murders/suicides ' would still happen to the same extent , so why doesn't this happen in other developed countries with tighter gun controls ?

Actually, the suicide rates in most countries with strict gun control are higher than that of the US. Check it out at the WHO's website. Sweden, Japan, France, Finland, Denmark, Australia, etc have higher suicide rates than the US. Although Switzerland also has a higher suicide rate than the US.

I actually as offended by that, before I checked your profile. Then I noticed that your from a nation that's like a fricken' protectorate of ours. So, come on'...

*hands over Howitzer*
*Bang Bang!!!*

[Snorri1234]

Actually, the suicide rates in most countries with strict gun control are higher than that of the US. Check it out at the WHO's website. Sweden, Japan, France, Finland, Denmark, Australia, etc have higher suicide rates than the US. Although Switzerland also has a higher suicide rate than the US.

I think comic boy was talking about suicide involving guns. Which the US has a much higher rate off.

[HapSmo19]

Because we aren't ruthless. Ok, let me rephrase. Guerrilla warfare works against a military that has humanitarian boundaries but fails against one that doesn't. If the US ever gets to the point that its own people are in revolution it would have to have one fucked up government. Considering the lack of restraint we've shown against the "terrorist" populations of the Middle East I somehow doubt that a evil version of ourselves would have any qualms massacring its people.

I have to disagree and I will qualify my stance with a conspiracy theory.
Any large-scale revolution on US soil would be met with UN forces. Not the US military. This is how American patriotism would be countered. It's not hard to imagine large numbers of national guard units siding with rebels(if they are in-country at the time ) and even larger numbers of regulars standing down or "concientiously objecting". Basically, the powers-that-be couldn't count on americans to kill americans so in with the UN forces and maybe even the Chinese the way the loyalties lie nowadays.

[InkL0sed]

Because we aren't ruthless. Ok, let me rephrase. Guerrilla warfare works against a military that has humanitarian boundaries but fails against one that doesn't. If the US ever gets to the point that its own people are in revolution it would have to have one fucked up government. Considering the lack of restraint we've shown against the "terrorist" populations of the Middle East I somehow doubt that a evil version of ourselves would have any qualms massacring its people.

I have to disagree and I will qualify my stance with a conspiracy theory.
Any large-scale revolution on US soil would be met with UN forces. Not the US military. This is how American patriotism would be countered. It's not hard to imagine large numbers of national guard units siding with rebels(if they are in-country at the time ) and even larger numbers of regulars standing down or "concientiously objecting". Basically, the powers-that-be couldn't count on americans to kill americans so in with the UN forces and maybe even the Chinese the way the loyalties lie nowadays.

Assuming the American military was as strong as it is now, that could never happen.

[HapSmo19]

Yeah well, any orders by the government to the military to kill americans wholesale would be nothing but fuel for the revolutionary fire. I'm not saying there's no level the government wouldn't stoop to to keep control, just that the the US military wouldn't be the answer for them.

[pimpdave]

I'm not saying there's no level the government wouldn't stoop to to keep control.

You mean like allowing fast food to be classified as food?
You mean like ensuring the poor stay poor and get poorer?
You mean like getting us dependent on oil through developing the infrastructure as it is today?
You mean like FOX News?

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah well, any orders by the government to the military to kill americans wholesale would be nothing but fuel for the revolutionary fire. I'm not saying there's no level the government wouldn't stoop to to keep control, just that the the US military wouldn't be the answer for them.

I really doubt that the US military would, in fact, fire on it's countrymen anyways.

Blackwater, on the other hand...............................

[Frigidus]

Yeah well, any orders by the government to the military to kill americans wholesale would be nothing but fuel for the revolutionary fire. I'm not saying there's no level the government wouldn't stoop to to keep control, just that the the US military wouldn't be the answer for them.

I'm sure that's how pretty much everyone feels until it happens. Nobody I know of says "Yes, I think that my fellow countrymen would kill each other for the sake of our leaders". Yet the possibility is always there. One would be surprised how cruel humanity is. I submit to you the Milgram experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

And the YouTube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLP6eg8X13s

[HapSmo19]

I'm sure that's how pretty much everyone feels until it happens. Nobody I know of says "Yes, I think that my fellow countrymen would kill each other for the sake of our leaders". Yet the possibility is always there. One would be surprised how cruel humanity is. I submit to you the Milgram experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

I've seen that before and that's not exactly what I'm talking about. One guy in an anonymous position torturing another to earn a hundred bucks doesn't surprise me. The Big Red 1 rolling on Dearborn Michigan is a different story. Not unprecidented but unmanned and/or remotely controlled weapons delivery systems would be far more likely in that situation. And any type of weapon at that.

[Snorri1234]

I'm sure that's how pretty much everyone feels until it happens. Nobody I know of says "Yes, I think that my fellow countrymen would kill each other for the sake of our leaders". Yet the possibility is always there. One would be surprised how cruel humanity is. I submit to you the Milgram experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

I've seen that before and that's not exactly what I'm talking about. One guy in an anonymous position torturing another to earn a hundred bucks doesn't surprise me. The Big Red 1 rolling on Dearborn Michigan is a different story. Not unprecidented but unmanned and/or remotely controlled weapons delivery systems would be far more likely in that situation. And any type of weapon at that.

You also can't ignore the fear for angry mobs/armed forces. Along with propaganda that usually fuels either sides' resolution to stop it. For a resolution to happen people have to be desperate, and that means that there will also be a part of the people that is for the government. Every revolution that happened was partly held back by armed forces of the government, because those people thought that what they did was the right thing.

A revolution now, yeah that would mean the army wouldn't oppose much. But times are far from revolution-talk.


Also, that torture wasn't for money. It shows people will do basically anything as long as a dude in a labcoat tells them it's ok.