Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

[PanzerJaeger]

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

That's what I was thinking. I've been worried about gun rights since Columbine, but it seems the trend has gone in the other direction despite the recent spate of mass shootings.

1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

When the government starts confiscating guns!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

[Ironside]

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

For a recent comparising of gun attitude. Gas station in neghtbour town got robbed by gun armed robbers. A costumer and two others came to the conclusion that the robbers weren't having serious guns (shot no warning shot), went driving (unarmed) after the muggers and catched them. The guns was shown to be soft air guns.
What are the odds of this making sense in the US?

There was one before that.

Victory or death vs victory or too much vasted resources. Somehow I think civil wars have slightly higher motivation involved, compared to colonial independence. Not counting how much different the equipment has changed.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

Hopefully people that is not intending to make a military coup or shoot at civilians? That's were the ideological battle to create or prevent as successful armed rebellion takes place.

People's support of gun ownership is going to increase in uncertain financial times for a whole host of reasons. In case some of you have been sleeping, the US Government is an abject failure that has failed to stave off even the most basic of problems they were warned about 20, 30, 40 years ago. Considering human nature, beuaracracy, entitlement attitudes of the have-nots and the big picture as a whole, anyone who trusts in the American government to protect them 100% from crime is living on another planet.

Reality vs ideas. Who will win?

You do know that the crime rate is much lower today than 20 years ago? And lower than 30 years ago. THE GOVERMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ITS JOB, SO WE NEED THE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELF.

[Noncommunist]

At least in the US, I can't see any sort of coup actually succeeding. After all, with hundreds of years of democratic tradition and plenty of training not to kill civilians, I can't see the military firing at US citizens beyond just a few bad apples. Even in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, army units have defected to avoid shooting their own citizens. And the US trained Egyptian and Tunisian militaries refused to even stop the overthrow of their government.

[Major Robert Dump]

You do know that the crime rate is much lower today than 20 years ago? And lower than 30 years ago. THE GOVERMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ITS JOB, SO WE NEED THE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELF.

And what makes you think the "GOVERNMENT" is responsible for making the crime rate go down? Are you really that naieve? There are hundreds of stimuli that affect crime trends

I might also point out that as populations age and mature and progress, certain things become less illegal over time, which affects recording crime. 20 years ago, stealing anything with a value over $50 was considered GRAND LARCENY a felony in most US States. Now it's anywhere from $500 to $1000 to qualify for that....... Based on a change of values, there are fewer felonious thefts today than 20 years ago.

[Ironside]

And what makes you think the "GOVERNMENT" is responsible for making the crime rate go down? Are you really that naieve? There are hundreds of stimuli that affect crime trends

I might also point out that as populations age and mature and progress, certain things become less illegal over time, which affects recording crime. 20 years ago, stealing anything with a value over $50 was considered GRAND LARCENY a felony in most US States. Now it's anywhere from $500 to $1000 to qualify for that....... Based on a change of values, there are fewer felonious thefts today than 20 years ago.

The government is a factor, but I can agree on that's it's probably not the main driver in this case.

Main thing was that there's no (or very poor) correlation between "guns are needed, since the goverment fails to protect", gun ownership and crime.

Theft is completely irrelevant to gun ownership. Muggery and robbery is in some form, although I'm not sure how it's treated (theft or assult) in the data.

[Major Robert Dump]

Of course government is one of many factors in lower crime, but I might also point out that gun ownership is also a factor. That being said, there is plenty to correlate that people want guns because their government fails to protect. I am not making a statement of right or wrong, I am telling you how people feel. One thing that trips me up about the gun-control crowd from countires that have effectively had strict gun controls for decades, is that their arguments fail to consider the pure saturation of guns in this nation. We can argue and go round and round endlessly about what came first the chicken or the egg, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of bad people in this country who have guns, gun control would not convonce them to turn in their guns as they are crooks already, and citizens lacking guns will cause a field day for the criminals with guns. You, Ironside, may think it worthwhile to partake in such a social experiment for the greater, long term good, and that is probably where we will never see eye to eye.

Washington DC is one of the worst places in the nation. Chicagos gun ban has been fail. Meanwhile, states that enact conceal-carry laws see an almost immediate drop in victim-type crimes, while counties in adjacent states that dont have conceal-carry have an immediate increase in victim-crime, because the professional criminals are migrating targets.

Guns are not the solution, and neither is banning them wholesale.

[Ronin]

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

yes there is.
there is only way thing nowadays that can keep an overwhelming military force from just rolling over the most determined "insurgent" force.
and that's bad P.R.
the question is, "how far is the big guy willing to go to win?" are they willing to resort to absolute extreme measures if necessary? do they not care how it might look to the rest of the world?....or can they cover it up at the very least?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information.

[Kagemusha]

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information.

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

[Beskar]

Higher chance for a Militarist Coup then a 'Revolution' in America where the 'People' overthrow the government.

Based on common social trends and political views alone, nevermind the 'Hardware' involved.

[PanzerJaeger]

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

The success or failure of any insurgency is based on a rather large array of factors, such as popular support, size and scope, geographic distribution, resources, money and/or economic situation, political organization and alignment, foreign support, production capacity, and literally thousands more – and those apply to both the insurgent forces and the government. Without outlining a scenario that at least attempts to address some of those specifics, it is rather foolish to make a definitive statement about the success or failure of a hypothetical insurgency.

Further, basing such an assessment purely on the (unsupported) notion that Americans are too fat, lazy, and/or comfortable to mount such a insurgency in comparison to Afghanis reveals a dearth of critical thinking, not only about the potential advantages Americans might enjoy over Afghanis in such a conflict, but about the nature of insurgency itself.

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

There was one before that.

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

I have no idea. I don't spend much time thinking about the subject as I see it as such a remote possibility. My support for gun rights is based primarily on my belief in personal freedom and my enjoyment of shooting as a hobby and more distantly on the fact that I live in a city with a large, impoverished, and restive black population that very much resembles that which plunged Los Angeles into chaos in 1992. I do not fear government, but a lack of government - and it is good to know that I have options for my and my family's security apart from reliance on the government in case of a breakdown in social order.

A successful insurgency in the United States would likely conform to the conditions laid out in the 2010 RAND study on the subject. There would have to be significant popular support, international sponsorship, availible sanctuary, and a weakening of the federal government. None of these are out of the realm of possibility, especially considering that for a sizable insurgency to even develop, the US would likely have to undergo a signficant transition toward tyranny - one which would alarm the US populace and the international community.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control

[Proletariat]

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

[CrossLOPER]

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

You think that the military cannot be turned against "domestic insurgents"?

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

[Montmorency]

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.
CR

So if terrorists systematically attack federal agents, the federal legislature and most state legislatures will unanimously agree to the demands of said terrorists?

[CrossLOPER]

to say nothing of the obesity rate

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

[Centurion1]

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

ummmmmmm, no that was not a revolution.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

ummmmmmm, no that was not a revolution.....

STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS. PROTECT OUR FREEDOM FROM THE YANKIES

There was one before that.

You mean the one we pretty much lost if it was wasn't for the French coming to help us?

[PanzerJaeger]

You mean the one we pretty much lost if it was wasn't for the French coming to help us?

Yes, state sponsorship is key to the success of an insurgency.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

But not for obese people. Obese people tend to roll over and die in such situations primarily because they've ruined the efficiency of their metabolism. That's why you'll find that obese people do not just eat “more” they also complain of being hungry sooner after their meal. By the way, it is a very similar story for those people who “hit the gym” so often but for them it is the energy saving features of the metabolism which no longer work well. (Their body being too big: idle muscle is rather inefficient.)

It's the people who are underweight to slightly overweight and don't work out for the sake of it that survive, or in other words those don't who didn't need a diet in the first place.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

If you don't die.

[Ronin]

If you don't die.

actually that also results in weight loss :P