Concealed Weapons (or more specifically, handguns)

[Demetrius]

My bad on the numbers, the last death that I had heard of (not a police shooting) involving bullets as the cause of death was about 2 years ago, deer season '05 I think. There are probably more, but as Fifth said, the number is still quite small. I think a lot of this is due to the fact that we all grow up with guns and respect them, we have plenty of awareness training starting when you get your first hunting license as a kid, or even your first BB gun. Concealed weapons are no different from any other weapon, they are always available and can easily be obtained and used. The real question is more of why are they used or for what reason and by whom. Crazy people kill people all the time, it really isn't that hard and as Heston said, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

[Sithdarth]

Not really though. Like I said in that post that was linked, the military is comprised of human beings that have to eat and sleep. They aren't invincible, and some guns/IED's and you can make procurement of resources, and eventually victory, impossible for a sustained war effort. Look at what the VC did/the Iraqis are doing now. Now, would the militia casualties be astronomical? Absolutely. But Freedom is one of those things people seem willing to lay down their lives for.

You are forgetting a few key differences:

1) Unlike Iraq or Vietnam the army wouldn't be on unfamiliar ground. They'd have just about the same tactical knowledge of a lot of the terrain. They wouldn't be fighting in a hostile environment they weren't used. Best of all the factories that replace/repair military equipment are here so they can roll right out of the factory and into battle.

2) Sure the militants are defending their homes and thus have great incentive to win but so are the soldiers. This isn't true for Iraq and wasn't true for Vietnam which makes a difference. The military doesn't have the option of pulling out if things get rough and the soldiers probably wouldn't want to anyway.

3) It'd be relatively hard for the militants to actually hide. They'd need supplies, probably a lot of them, and the government could easily track the purchases. The military generally doesn't have this option in during a war in a foreign country.

Basically if a good number of the citizens of this country did go to war against the army it'd be nothing like any war we've seen to date. It wouldn't be absolutely one sided but the military would eventually gain control.

[Demetrius]

In the case you are refering to Sith, I think you are forgetting that many soldiers would side with the rebels (heh, Star Wars), especially if they had just cause to rebel. Soldiers are people as well and, I believe, part of their oaths are to defend us from enemies foriegn and domestic. A buddy of mine also got into trouble and then commended for refusing orders that were wrong. People are a factor, and not many people relish the idea of fighting their own neighbors.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

You are forgetting a few key differences:

1) Unlike Iraq or Vietnam the army wouldn't be on unfamiliar ground. They'd have just about the same tactical knowledge of a lot of the terrain. They wouldn't be fighting in a hostile environment they weren't used. Best of all the factories that replace/repair military equipment are here so they can roll right out of the factory and into battle.

What does a guy from Wisconsin know about fighting in California or Florida? Not much. The factories being right there would also make them just as easy to sabotage.

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

2) Sure the militants are defending their homes and thus have great incentive to win but so are the soldiers. This isn't true for Iraq and wasn't true for Vietnam which makes a difference. The military doesn't have the option of pulling out if things get rough and the soldiers probably wouldn't want to anyway.

The soldiers would be firing on their own countrymen, and in a lot of cases family members. You don't think that would provide a large psychological disincentive?

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

3) It'd be relatively hard for the militants to actually hide. They'd need supplies, probably a lot of them, and the government could easily track the purchases. The military generally doesn't have this option in during a war in a foreign country.

Assuming the shopkeeps weren't in collaboration or at least sympathetic. Or the supplies weren't just outright stolen or home-made/grown.

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Basically if a good number of the citizens of this country did go to war against the army it'd be nothing like any war we've seen to date. It wouldn't be absolutely one sided but the military would eventually gain control.

At least we partly agree.

[bluestarultor]

Restrictions on weaponry don't actually hinder criminals. It just keeps stuff from everyone who acquires things legally. However, it probably does lessen accidental deaths. You know, idiot dad gets a gun and hides it in a shoe box in the bottom of his closet, kid goes looking for his birthday present early and BANG! Really, it's the parent's faults for not, oh, say putting it on the freakin' top shelf instead of the floor. But it happens and gun control means it happens less.

While I don't mind the idea of concealed carry for those legally old enough to own a gun, if it ever gets passed in WI (I forget the outcome of the last discussion we had on it), the age should probably be 21 to keep them out of the schools, because God knows the kids around here don't follow age restriction laws for anything else. They can have their legal friends by them cigarettes at 14, or booze at 17, but good luck trying to get a gun from your best friend's big brother.

[Sithdarth]

In the case you are refering to Sith, I think you are forgetting that many soldiers would side with the rebels (heh, Star Wars), especially if they had just cause to rebel. Soldiers are people as well and, I believe, part of their oaths are to defend us from enemies foriegn and domestic. A buddy of mine also got into trouble and then commended for refusing orders that were wrong. People are a factor, and not many people relish the idea of fighting their own neighbors.

Already addressed this in my first post. You'd need about half of the army to suddenly decide to defect and then it doesn't guarantee victory for the rebels. The only thing it gets you is a bigger blood bath. The really scary thing though is the trend toward automation. In 20-30 years the army might not even need half the troops it has now. It might be able to function with the majority of its forces sitting in front of TV screens with joysticks. Which is sad because its a lot easier to kill people when you don't have to be there in person.

What does a guy from Wisconsin know about fighting in California or Florida? Not much. The factories being right there would also make them just as easy to sabotage.

So what there is no one in the army from California or Florida. Or is it just that you think the army commanders aren't smart enough to send the commanders and troops from California or Florida to fight in California or Florida.

As for factories its not like the military doesn't know how to secure buildings against attack. I mean we've got Fort Knox, Area 51, and just about any other sensitive military installation as a blue print.

Assuming the shopkeeps weren't in collaboration or at least sympathetic. Or the supplies weren't just outright stolen or home-made/grown.

Well in either case its a simple matter to start tagging the food with RFID tags or some other method and just track them that way. Of course its relatively unfeasible to out right steal/grow enough food to feed a large force without it being easily spotted. Further, it's not to hard to figure out that a shopkeeper as been giving away substantial amounts of his product to someone.

The soldiers would be firing on their own countrymen, and in a lot of cases family members. You don't think that would provide a large psychological disincentive?

Well for one the chances of a soldier actually meeting/shooting at family members in a situation where they were face to face,and know they are fighting a family memeber, is highly unlikely. As for just random country men we are assuming these country men started fighting and killing soldiers first. Not really that hard to kill someone trying to kill you.

[Fifthfiend]

Just to pick out one particular nit here --

Originally Posted by Mannix

Both are as deadly as they are useful, so why should I feel strange about one and not the other?

-- I'm pretty sure cars are much, much more useful than they are deadly, whereas guns, basically by definition, are exactly as useful as they are deadly.

[Sesshoumaru]

Accidental deaths from firearms have been steadily decreasing for years, at the same time that handgun ownership is reaching record high levels. Lott talks about this in More Guns LEss Crime. Most of the accidental deaths from firearms are in households where the shooter has a history of drug of alcohol abuse, often with previous run-ins with the law, these are the same people that are the least likely to obey 'safe-storage' laws. Also, while accidents where a child shoots themselves or another child get huge media frenzy coverage, they are the rarest of an already rare type of accident. The answer is not more laws, it what Demetrius was talking about, make sure the kids know what not to do when they find a gun laying around, unfortuanately, the big gun-control groups are also adamentally against firearms safety education for children, such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. Makes you wonder where their priorities are.

[ArlanKels]

Gun-control groups might be against firearms safety education for children simply because they do not want to compromise in the slightest on firearms whatsoever.

Or because they want to keep exposure to firearms at the absolute bare minimum(0%) by not allowing children to even view safety videos/etc.

Though they might also be the people who cause television censorship of firearms...



Oh, and don't forget about school shootings. The schools that have shootings make up, what.. .0001% of all schools in the US? Something obscenely small...

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Just to pick out one particular nit here --



-- I'm pretty sure cars are much, much more useful than they are deadly, whereas guns, basically by definition, are exactly as useful as they are deadly.

You've obviously never seen Death Race 2000.


And Sith, we can't even prevent supplies from reaching/actually find bin Laden, and Afganistan is a fraction the size of the US. You're underesitmating the resourcefulness of the average guerilla fighter and overestimating the abilities of the military. They can't be everywhere, they can't see everything. Shopkeepers/factory owners can cook their books, instillations take lots of time and resources to build/fortify and can be infiltriated by defectors, etc etc etc. The common person has power over their destiny, and moreso when they're armed.

Local militia's are much more unlikely to fire on locals, so they'd have to be sent to other regions they'd presumably know less about.

I also think you're invisioning this war as a repeat of the Civil War, which may not be the case. Guerilla wars are much more easy to sustain/supply (because everybody is in a small band that can fend/supply/forage for its self) and much much much harder to fight against than a regular army war. We kicked the ever loving crap out of the Iraqi military, but trying to fight people that look just like the regular population is damned near impossible.