Newtown School Shootings

**Greyblades** · 12-17-2012, 22:31

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

**Hooahguy** · 12-17-2012, 22:41

Originally Posted by Greyblades

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

I dunno, Iraq and Afghanistan tells otherwise. Counter-insurgency is a

.

**Greyblades** · 12-17-2012, 22:46

Um... Are you agreeing with me or disputing it? I honestly cant tell with that.

**Hooahguy** · 12-17-2012, 22:48

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

**Greyblades** · 12-17-2012, 22:56

Huh, well going by the news I got the idea that the afghans were causing more damage with bombs than bullets and that they were doing it with guns from out of the country.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 12-17-2012, 23:48

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

**Hooahguy** · 12-18-2012, 00:36

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

Fair point, you got me, though looking at the statistics, IEDs only caused around 66% of all casualties, so there can still be a serious amount of casualties caused by small arms fire. Also within the gun community there is a high importance of accuracy, so Id bet US rebels here would be more accurate. Though I also wonder how quickly Russia or China would jump to help arm rebels in the US with bigger and better weapons?

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

Though overall I have to overall agree with you. We do need stricter laws when it comes to guns. Banning them outright wont do jack, even if you just ban assault rifles. There are too many and how are you going to enforce it? What we do need, in addition to better mental health care, is more care devoted to tracking weapons and background checks.

**Greyblades** · 12-18-2012, 01:02

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.

**Husar** · 12-18-2012, 01:25

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

That depends a lot.
First of all the US Army in Afghanistan and Iraq is kinda fighting a two-front war against both the rebels and the rest of the world which is watching everything they do. That creates a Level of restraint and ROI they probably wouldn't have if their tyrant master told them to massacre the insurgency at home. It's a bit like saying the german citizens in WW2 could've defended themselves with rifles and pistols against B-17s and Lancasters dropping fire bombs.

And then you have the whole terrain Thing, which became really obvious in Libya, where the rebels couldn't leave the cities because they would get utterly destroyed by tanks out in the open. And in the cities they were then shelled and assaulted as well without much room to maneuver. Now the USA are less of a desert than Libya in most parts but I'm not sure how much mobility the rebels would be able to keep.

A lot of the more successful rebellions seem to have an influx of either heavy weaponry/support from outside the country and/or military switching sides, possibly bringing heavy equipment.

And since it was mentioned that sports Shooting is one of the least valid reasons to have a gun, it's actually one of the few reasons to have a gun here in Germany. Our gun ownership level isn't really low either by the way, it is however very regulated and full of rules, requirements and regular checks.
http://p4.focus.de/img/gen/R/c/HBRcd...en_r_700xA.JPG
This table lists the number of guns per 100 citizens and the overall number of guns in the country for some countries (they list gunpolicy.org as the source but it seems to be down).

**ICantSpellDawg** · 12-18-2012, 01:34

And yet the British weren't so wholesale brutal during the American Revolution. I'd imagine that in the America that we fear there would still be some level of homefront empathy and reason, even if it were under wraps to an extent. We didn't overthrow the crown because they were sending us to work camps and burning us in ovens.