No Problem. To quote Smaug, “Your information is antiquated.” The article appeals to historical incidents for its authority, but completely ignores modern innovations, practices, and standards that make such an outcome improbable. My original point still stands as a solid counter to the paper; as others have also argued in this thread. There currently exists no oppressing ethnic majority or minority, nor would a resistance armed with the available resources be able to adequately defend against a motivated military force acting at the behest of a tyrannical government. The apaer itself makes the point that if an armed populace causes more problems then it may solve theoretically, it is logical to de-arm the population. Now if you have a counter, other than: “That’s just what a gun grabber would say!” I’d love to hear it. What tactics, what practices, what theoretical chains of command, groups of people, and resources do you feel could be adequately organized, trained, and mustered to repel an American military incursion on our own soil?
As opposed to the trick to make our soldiers you want to kill in a “rebellion” not count as our soldiers?
Are you proud of the efforts of any in the militia who fought to free this nation?
So you think the article is all true, it’s just old?
They would have done better by joining the established military to avoid the confusion as to who to trust on either side. A self-described “patriot” answerable to no one is an x-factor that can really do harm to a cause.
Please, people! Red Dawn was just a bad movie. Twice.
There are no cheese curls in the winter woods.
Not even close to what he said, is it?
Sort of. I think the article makes decent points, but utterly fails to acknowledge modern day realities of technology and practices that make its conclusion nothing more than opinion; and an ill-considered one at that.
People who feel no loyalty to their fellow countrymen cannot fathom that their fellow countrymen might feel loyal to them.
So do you think that it was good for the people to be armed at more primitive times in our country, and in perhaps in more primitive countries at this time? You just disagree with him regarding modern countries like us today?
You oversimplify, but that is essentially correct. In less technologically advanced times, when cities and towns were more geographically isolated an armed citizenry or militia might well have served a useful purpose in the defense of the people. Possibly this was even true up through WWII or so. Now, the advances in technology, communication speeds and general access to news and information will prevent a general breakdown of government into a tyrannical state. Even if such an eventuality were to occur, the military powers now wielded by the American armed forces far outstrip anything that private citizens could slap together quickly.
Understanding this, what useful purpose does a heavily armed populace fulfill in regards to the security, or general welfare of its citizenry? It cannot prevent a military incursion, nor has it been proven in recent times to prevent abuses of ethnic minorities; because in first-world countries we don’t allow that sort of thing any longer. We’ve moved beyond the need for citizen militias; and a good thing as far as I’m concerned. In such a breakdown state we are FAR more likely to find those groups banding together to loot and pillage then we are to find them calmly, competently, and respectfully acting as a defacto police force and ensuring order.
I’m ex-military and a firearm owner myself, and the lack of training, respect and discipline demonstrated by a large proportion of owners towards their weaponry is appalling. There is no need to ban guns, but there is no likewise no need for the general citizenry to have unlimited access to military grade weapons designed for combat rather than recreation or self defense. In other countries with strict laws, gun violence is greatly reduced. While other violent crime rates DO rise in response, we must remember that the lethality of the outcomes is also greatly reduced when firearms are removed from the equation. I’d rather deal with twenty knife wielding opponents than one with a firearm. At least you can try to outrun the guys with knives. So ban all firearms? Of course not. Restrict them heavily, require testing and licensing? Absolutely.
Please cite where the access to guns by civilians is correlated to a reduced homicide rate please?
Also note that “military grade firearms” is a bit of an overstatement, Semi auto or multi shot firearms were in civilian hands long before they were ever used by the military.
The current “military arms” semi-auto equivalent firearm is chambered in a round that is ment to maximize the amount of ammo a soldier can carry to reduce logistics issue at the expence of deadliness and “power”
Note for the most part you can outrun people with firearms and pistols as easily as you can someone with knives as the ability to hit a target with a pistol is more difficult in an inverse square relationship.
But really that is just a faux bravado statement, the likelihood that you are faster than all 20 individuals is highly unlikely.
Not unless you’re The Flash. This “knives are just as deadly as guns” argument the gun fetishists keep making is utterly ridiculous; of course guns are more dangerous. That’s why they were invented.
You’re losing on this front. The Nazis were beaten by the long horrible grind of Eastern European resistance–by people who* fought back.*
I’m for total gun confiscation, because I want to stop the arming of* coyotes,* street gangs, and drunk idiots in Florida. But I’m not going to tell anyone facing the Nazi horde that running is the only answer. Running to where you can train, organize, and fight as an effective army is the answer. And while you’re running, a few worthies with illegal guns could help.
And that’s the thing. If you need to resist the state with your firearms, you’re already an enemy of the state. Law-abiding gun owners, for better or for worse, are not bulwarks “against tyranny,” they’re bulwarks of conservative order. The resistance are criminals by definition, whether good or bad.
No; they were beaten by armies.
Strawman…I never said knives were as dangerous although for most “fights” they can be very dangerous.
The reality is that vast majority of gun fights happen within 7 yards, At this distance a knife is VERY dangerous although much riskier for the attacker. The Tueller Drill is used to drive this point home in many police training programs.
Also the reality is that past about that distance people just don’t feel threatened enough to use deadly force.
But this is still ignoring the main point, he claimed there was a causative correlation between the number of firearms in private hands and the homicide rate. This is a common myth but up to this point no one can provide a cite to show it is related.
Now that hit close to home. My ancestors fought in that war, on the “Patriot” side. They ran off their “Tory” neighbors to Canada. A third of the populace were driven into exile, or killed; over the right of coastal landowners to exploit the interior on their terms instead of deferring to Parliament.
Were my ancestors good guys? Were they thugs? Maybe suckers?
I don’t think they were in the right, in the end. A lot of people lost their homes or their lives over “Patriot” ambition. First Loyalists, then the Indians who had every treaty with my people broken.
Maybe the ability to carry off a guerrilla war like that isn’t such a good thing after all.
No, I claimed that there was a correlation between a reduction of firearms and a reduction of firearm homicides, which is simply common sense. The UK is an excellent example.
OK, so what makes firearm homicides worse than homicide in general? Is there a special social outrage if a persons life it taken with a firearm vs. a similar number being killed by a blunt object or a knife?
But the homicide rate is much lower in England than the US - about 1.7 vs 4.7 respectively (per 100,000 residents). This despite a purportedly higher rate of violent crime in the UK.
I asked this of a gun botherer in another thread but got no answer. How is it that a more violent populace ends up with fewer murders?
And yes, it is worse to be murdered than not murdered.