Guns

[otago]

Not to mention an armed citizenry was supposed to keep the government in check.

Armed citizens vs regular army?

 

[Danoff]

At least one website shows UK robbery at 138 per 100,000. Which (based on the variation from year to year that I've seen) is a statistically insignificant difference from the US rate. Possibly an indication that US citizens are assumed to be unarmed (which they generally are).

Edit: I had to do some math to get that number though, so it may not be quite right.
Edit #2: I wonder also whether the number of government programs handing out money to would-be robbers has an effect. Don't get me wrong, I don't support that sort of thing. But I suppose its possible that it could be a downward pressure on theft stats.

 

[otago]

In that situation, you're dead anyway. The guy wants to kill as many people as he can! Until he runs out of ammunition or his gun jams, everyone in the room is dead. So your chances are none at all.

It wasn't room, it was shopping moll. The guy had a choice to run away or use a gun.

Apparently he didn't have any practice because couldn't estimate the right distance. In this situation you should be sure your shot will hit or you better run.

 

[Sureboss]

@Famine

US Crime stats for robberies are 147.6 per 100,000 for 2007. Not sure what the UK stats are. I thought I had something but it fell through. I spotted this though:



Burglaries are likely to go up as criminals become concerned with citizens being able to defend themselves. Robbery is more likely to rise as one feels that they have an physical advantage over those that they might be robbing - as would be the case with an unarmed population.

But one would generally expect violent crimes to rise across the board (rather than just theft) when victims are disarmed. I won't call the above quote conclusive evidence that that has happened, but it certainly doesn't refute the notion.

Compiled by the Tories, that'll be nice and accurate stats then.

I struggle to believe us Brits are 3 times more likely to a victim of violent crime, than an American. That said, I would agree that there has been an increase in crime with use of a weapon here, but they tend to be in hubs, like Nottingham (though thanks to breaking up a gang, that has fallen drastically in the last few years), Liverpool, Mankychester and some parts of London.

Pretty sure firearm deaths are down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm

I know it's a bit dated...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0809.html

There's loads on there, and the BCS is quite well recognised for it's reports, as it often goes out and asks the populace, even gathering stats from crimes which aren't recorded.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109summ.pdf

Page 4 of that shows a big decline in trends.

Though everyone will know you can go a million miles with statistics and not get anywhere.

Though my personal victimisation (ie, family, friends, etc) would go with those trends. Nothing since the end of the 90s. But then I know my local area is down a lot on all crimes.

 

[Danoff]

Compiled by the Tories, that'll be nice and accurate stats then.

I struggle to believe us Brits are 3 times more likely to a victim of violent crime, than an American. That said, I would agree that there has been an increase in crime with use of a weapon here, but they tend to be in hubs, like Nottingham (though thanks to breaking up a gang, that has fallen drastically in the last few years), Liverpool, Mankychester and some parts of London.

Pretty sure firearm deaths are down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm

I know it's a bit dated...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0809.html

There's loads on there, and the BCS is quite well recognised for it's reports, as it often goes out and asks the populace, even gathering stats from crimes which aren't recorded.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109summ.pdf

Page 4 of that shows a big decline in trends.

Those are all the websites I've been going to to try to find statistics. Gun crime statistics aren't particularly important here. I think the key is violent crime - which is what we all really care about. I don't particularly care about the difference between being shot to death and being stabbed to death - I just don't want to be killed. Likewise, someone breaking into my house to steal things when I'm not there has very little to do with gun ownership, and is something that I care an awful lot less about than theft while I'm present.

I guess I'll have to go on a violent crime fact-finding search.

 

[Danoff]

The US FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html

Says violent crime is 454.5 per 100,000 in the US.

Edit:

Here's the UK number:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap78.pdf

Check table 7a (12 pages in?), Violent crime is 23 per 1000 or 2300 per 100,000. That seems so incredibly much higher than the US that it almost seems there must be a difference in what qualifies as a violent crime (though that hardly seems debatable).

 

[Sureboss]

Page 7 of that last PDF has stats and trends on Violent crime. Bah, too late for this, night!

 

[Keef]

Page 7 of that last PDF has stats and trends on Violent crime. Bah, too late for this, night!

Pretty sure Danoff got it right. Page 7 has a map explaining burglary variations within a region, and page 12 has a table with various crime stats, including violent crime.

 

[Omnis]

Armed citizens vs regular army?

Standing armies were also frowned upon.

 

[Keef]

Armed citizens vs regular army?

Apparently you're never heard of the American Revolution.

Standing armies were also frowned upon.

While it's expensive and allows the government to cause a ruckus whenever they want to, I think keeping our standing army is necessary for our safety. Besides the fact that about every other nation has a full-time military, one of the reasons our is the best equipped and best trained is because they're always working, training and whatnot, and they're never not doing anything. A full-time military can also respond quicker in an emergency. The Reserves still keep up the training, but not as much as the standing guys.

But I'm been saying a lot of about constitution-this and constitution-that lately. What reasons are there why we should not have a full-time military? Are rights being infringed upon? Is it money wasted? Would we be safer without it?

I personally think the price is worth the greatest military in the world. The government just needs to be a little more cautious in how they use it.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Apparently you're never heard of the American Revolution.

The British let us win that one.

 

[otago]

Apparently you're never heard of the American Revolution.

Even rebel armies usually hide in mountains and forests. Their tactics is strike from behind, head to head with regular army they will be wiped out very fast

Poorly armed and disorganized civilians are nothing more than meat for heavy machine guns mounted on armoured vehicles

 

[Azuremen]

Even rebel armies usually hide in mountains and forests. Their tactics is strike from behind, head to head with regular army they will be wiped out very fast

Poorly armed and disorganized civilians are nothing more than meat for heavy machine guns mounted on armoured vehicles

Which is why all those revolutions in history are revolutions, not rebellions, because they didn't happen?

Are you really just that poorly informed?

 

[LSX]

Poorly armed and disorganized civilians are nothing more than meat for heavy machine guns mounted on armored vehicles

The thing is, we Americans are not poorly armed.
People get upset because we can own just about anything we can afford. You can buy a .50BMG rifle at my local gun shop, $5,995. That's not poorly armed is it? Now, I'm not saying everyone here has that, because I don't even know one person who does. But I do know plenty of people who have firearms in military calibers, or large bore rifles. I would not consider anything of that sort to be poorly armed. Some people that just buy a firearm to give themselves some security, never actually training with it or anything of the sort I would consider poorly armed. Most people I know or go shooting with are proficient with their firearms. Unarmed people would be more of "meat for machine guns", I'm sure you've seen how far rocks, and sticks will get you against an army. At least armed you have a fighting chance.

Americans who are law abiding gun owners are also great in number. The other thing is that everyone of our servicemen have familys they come home to and care about. They simply will not be shooting other Americans, armed or not. I don't think we will ever be just meat to a machine gun, damn sure not an American manned machine gun. Not even to a foreign army's machine gun, that is, as long as we keep our firearms.

It's because of our firearms, that if that situation were ever to arise, the people starting something like that would have to think long and hard about how badly they wanted to alienate our rights, or invade our soil. They won't just have to deal with state guards, or the National Guard, or even just our armed forces. They would be having to assume that every American citizen was armed as well as their self, it does not take organization to pull a trigger and make an occupying forces life a living hell.

There was a quote by some Japanese general from WWII, concerning invading the US mainland. I think it was "If you invade the US, you'll be living in constant fear because there will be a rifle barrel behind ever blade of grass, around every corner." I may be off on that quote, I'm not going to look it up, but that right there makes me feel good, it makes me feel secure. It makes me feel secure because I can make the decision for myself to fight my life, I won't just have to take it, like I would if I lived in a country or state with strict firearm laws or bans. That makes me feel good as well.

One man hidden with a rifle can hold down a whole company of soldiers, if he knows what he's doing. USMC sniper Carlos Hathcock did just that in Vietnam, in Elephant Valley. Just because an army has technology and equipment does not mean they are immune to normal people armed with weapons.

Look at the war in the Middle East for example. We are still over there, we're not even fighting an "army". Guerrilla warfare is very effective, it always has been. Some Americans would lay back and take it, armed or not, some though will not stand for it and put up a fight regardless of outcome.

 

[otago]

There was a quote by some Japanese general from WWII, concerning invading the US mainland. I think it was "If you invade the US, you'll be living in constant fear because there will be a rifle barrel behind ever blade of grass, around every corner."

Good example. During WW2 there were tens of big countries completely occupied with tons of guns in the hands of citizens. Guess what happened?

There were resistance doing some diversions, that's all

The thing is, we Americans are not poorly armed.
People get upset because we can own just about anything we can afford. You can buy a .50BMG rifle at my local gun shop, $5,995.

Try to buy tank, combat helicopter, heavy artillery or bomber. Not in stock? What about anti tank or anti aircraft systems? Automatic weapon?

You can't hold position without air and artillery support, you can't damage armoured vehicle with .50BMG rifle. All you can do - run and hide

 

[LSX]

It is a good example. Just because it worked in other countries does not mean it would have worked here.


So then any infantry troops are poorly armed as well them because I guess anything less than 105mm is useless for putting up any kind of fight.

FYI in the United States you can legally purchase automatic weapons with a more intense background check as well as paying a federal tax. Same goes for short barrel rifles or shotguns.

What makes you think you would need to hold position? Your talking about an army VS citizens, it would be a guerrilla war, no trenches or anything of the sort. The goal would be to attack and move.

.50BMG is made to defeat lightly armored vehicles or long range shots of soft targets. An AP .308/30.06/.338/7.62x39 round could defeat light steel armor. .408 Chey Tac would do an even better job than the .50, if I wanted I could buy any of those legally.

You don't need howitzers and helicopters to win a war.

The Russians didn't come out on top of anything in Afghanistan in the 80's did they? The Mujahadeen were not as well armed and yet they still drug the Russians into a 15 year waste of lives. Sure they were outfitted with some things by our military but who's to say the same would not happen to our citizens by another government, or our military?

 

[Azuremen]

Good example. During WW2 there were tens of big countries completely occupied with tons of guns in the hands of citizens. Guess what happened?

There were resistance doing some diversions, that's all

These resistances provided valuable support and information during the war. Though it was admittedly the Russians that were key in that conflict.

Try to buy tank, combat helicopter, heavy artillery or bomber. Not in stock? What about anti tank or anti aircraft systems? Automatic weapon?

You can't hold position without air and artillery support, you can't damage armoured vehicle with .50BMG rifle. All you can do - run and hide

But a molotov cocktail will make that tank a roaring inferno. Or making pipe bombs and so on. Or the armed citizens could storm a base while things are still in chaos and just arm themselves from the armory. Plus sympathizers, etc.

Converting a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic is a fairly simple task, from what I recall.

As for helicopters, I think the Vietnamese did a decent job handling that situation. And I think the Taliban and other "terrorist" forces seem to be doing well in the mid-east, despite facing one of the most advanced armies on earth. And they are using mostly out dated Soviet gear they have.

Basically, to ruin any invasions advance, you could just hang out in the mountains, swamps, everglades and so on, and ambush armor divisions. If I guy in Idaho can make pipe bombs that will level buildings, I am sure someone else can come up with a way to disable tanks.

You just seem to assume we'd all just stand around in the middle of a field and get run over by armor.

 

[otago]

But a molotov cocktail will make that tank a roaring inferno. Or making pipe bombs and so on.

You need a special kind of weapon to damage Abrams or T80. RPG-7 is like mosquito bites for them. And you are talking about pipe bombs.

As for helicopters, I think the Vietnamese did a decent job handling that situation.

Of course they did, having massive supply of modern jet fighters from USSR. It would be much worse if they were operated by USSR pilots like in Korea, vietnamese pilots were not too good. It was a regular army, fighting from mid of 1940-th

And if you don't mind me asking, where do you reside?

Is it New Zealand written under my sig?

 

[LSX]

You need a special kind of weapon to damage Abrams or T80. RPG-7 is like mosquito bites for them. And you are talking about pipe bombs.



Of course they did, having massive supply of modern jet fighters from USSR. It would be much worse if they were operated by USSR pilots like in Korea, vietnamese pilots were not too good.



Is it New Zealand written under my sig?

Special kinds of weapons like those being made in the Middle East? The ones called IMPROVISED Explosive Devices?... Tanks are not indestructible, nothing is.

This is not even on the topic of guns anymore. I think that an armed citizenry is better off than an unarmed one. There are plenty of reasons above if you choose to understand them or not, it's your choice.

 

[Azuremen]

You need a special kind of weapon to damage Abrams or T80. RPG-7 is like mosquito bites for them. And you are talking about pipe bombs.

If you make it so people can't be in the tank, you've disabled it. You don't have to completely destroy one of these to make it inoperative.

Of course they did, having massive supply of modern jet fighters from USSR. It would be much worse if they were operated by USSR pilots like in Korea, vietnamese pilots were not too good. It was a regular army, fighting from mid of 1940-th

Right, the bigger problem was the infantry they could never remove. And LSX did mention the USSR and Afghanistan. Or the guerrilla warfare the US is dealing with in the Mid-east right now.

Dealing with the armed US Citizenship would be similar. We aren't just going to stand in a field and try to hold a line... it would become urban and mountain warfare. Not stand around and shoot at each other in a lines. 💡

It is like you just ignore anything that goes against your opinion here like it isn't relevant.

Is it New Zealand written under my sig?

It wasn't when I looked at it a month ago, and now it is. And your English is fairly awkward so I assumed it to be your second language.

 

[otago]

Right, the bigger problem was the infantry they could never remove. And LSX did mention the USSR and Afghanistan. Or the guerrilla warfare the US is dealing with in the Mid-east right now.

USSR had a full control over country and did what they wanted. South Vietnam and US didn't have any control of north and sometimes they were kicked out from the capital.

This is a difference between guerrilla and regular army

 

[Azuremen]

USSR had a full control over country and did what they wanted. South Vietnam and US didn't have any control of north and sometimes they were kicked out from the capital.

This is a difference between guerrilla and regular army

Excuse me, but when did the USSR have full control of Afghanistan?

 

[otago]

Excuse me, but when did the USSR have full control of Afghanistan?

When? From 1979 to 1989.

 

[Azuremen]

When? From 1979 to 1989.

Wow.

So, despite having full control of the country for ten years, they were constantly fighting insurgent forces and ultimately pulled out?

The controlled some cities. Some numbers I dug up quickly mention something like 80% of the country wasn't under the control of the USSR Government.

So, I am not sure what the hell you mean when you say they had full control.

 

[LSX]

Me either, they would never have left if they had full control of the country. It's called "The Russian Vietnam" for a reason, it went no where, the cost outweighed the product. Just like most any Guerrilla war.

 

[otago]

Wow.

So, despite having full control of the country for ten years, they were constantly fighting insurgent forces and ultimately pulled out?

It was kind of coup by pro US forces in 1979 with killing Afgan president and all other stuff. The whole point of occupation was to prevent building US military bases and not allowing US to take control over the region. BTW, Afghanistan government officially asked about help. Nobody cares about Afghanistan itself, there is nothing there except enormous drug production.

So they took major cities and roads and were seating there until the threat from US disappeared.

Now the situation is very different. US crusade against taliban in Afghanistan is exactly what Russia needs

 

[Azuremen]

It was kind of coup by pro US forces in 1979 with killing Afgan president and all other stuff. The whole point of occupation was to prevent building US military bases and not allowing US to take control over the region. BTW, Afghanistan government officially asked about help. Nobody cares about Afghanistan itself, there is nothing there except enormous drug production.

So they took major cities and roads and were seating there until the threat from US disappeared.

This does not equal this...

USSR had a full control over country and did what they wanted. South Vietnam and US didn't have any control of north and sometimes they were kicked out from the capital.

This is a difference between guerrilla and regular army

That isn't fully controlling the country, last I checked. They basically had non stop fighting on their hands for 10 years while occupying Afghanistan. Which sounds a lot like Vietnam.

The point of guerilla warfare isn't to win straight out, but make the invaders life so miserable they just leave because it isn't cost effective to be there any longer. It worked against the British in the 18th century, it work against the USA in Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan, and it seems to be working against the USA in Iraq.

 

[otago]

The point of guerilla warfare isn't to win straight out, but make the invaders life so miserable they just leave because it isn't cost effective to be there any longer. It worked against the British in the 18th century, it work against the USA in Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan, and it seems to be working against the USA in Iraq.

There were two reasons for leaving Afghanistan: US wasn't interesting in this area anymore and USSR started to decay at this moment.

Getting rid of guerilla is not as big problem as you think. In Chechnya it was almost a regular army with tanks and heavy artillery, not guerilla. Now they are all dead. This time Russia really cared to get rid of them, cause it's not some distant foreign country but inner territory.

 

[LSX]

If the US were not interested, why was the USA arming the Afghans? If wining a war against a guerrilla force is so easy, why did the US leave Vietnam, why is the US still in the Middle East after we walked through the Iraqi army in '91 and again in the 2000's. Why did we win the Revolutionary War? Because when uniforms and enemy lines aren't involved, it's much harder to fight them.

The Russians left because they were not interested in losing more lives than they already were.

It comes down to this. Your saying that people are better off with rocks, knives, sticks and whatever else, than being armed with firearms to defend themselves with? Or what are you getting at? Guerrilla warfare works, plain and simple. It's been proven to work in the past, where is the debate that it works or does not? These people aren't fighting with sticks, there using guns, bombs, and whatever heavy equipment they can procure from any source.

 

[Azuremen]

There were two reasons for leaving Afghanistan: US wasn't interesting in this area anymore and USSR started to decay at this moment.

Getting rid of guerilla is not as big problem as you think. In Chechnya it was almost a regular army with tanks and heavy artillery, not guerilla. Now they are all dead. This time Russia really cared to get rid of them, cause it's not some distant foreign country but inner territory.

I'm just done. You really don't get it at all, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, repeated several different ways.

So, I'm done. Clearly you don't get it and I'm not wasting my time any more.