Could civilian gun owners defeat the US military?

people who live in high crime areas are more likely to have a gun in their home. People who live in high crime areas are more likely to be the victim of a crime. Therefore people with guns in their homes are more likely to experience gun violence.

See how that works? No? Here's another. People with gold toofs in their head are more likely to live in high crime areas. People with gold toofs are more likely to experience gun violence. Therefore gold toofs are dangerous & increase your chances of being shot..

'Course in the 2nd example we could just outlaw the guns, which would cause all the thugs to stop using them...right?

My name is Lance wrote:

people who live in high crime areas are more likely to have a gun in their home. People who live in high crime areas are more likely to be the victim of a crime. Therefore people with guns in their homes are more likely to experience gun violence.

See how that works? No? Here's another. People with gold toofs in their head are more likely to live in high crime areas. People with gold toofs are more likely to experience gun violence. Therefore gold toofs are dangerous & increase your chances of being shot..

'Course in the 2nd example we could just outlaw the guns, which would cause all the thugs to stop using them...right?

awww....isn't that cute, the little racist red-neck thinks he's being clever, witty, and making a good point. Too bad he's wrong (as always). The studies being cited to show that the more guns you have in your home, town, state or country (take your pick) leads to one more likely dying of gun violence CONTROLS for the socioeconomic factors you are bringing up. For example:

2 examples, but there are more:

Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Look man, if you don't like reality, just stick to the typical conservative comeback: these are liberal biased studies, it's all a conspiracy! You know, just like how all those polls were "skewed" in Obama's favor, and Romney was really wayyyy ahead.

Now get to work on arming kindergartners so we all can be safer!

I'm pretty sure my kiddos are plotting to kill me with a falling flat screen. No need to waste ammo!

And I agree with you. Guns do not make you safer, with the tiny exception of when other people with guns are shooting at you, and we know that never happens except in gun free school zones! So just stay off skool grounds, college campuses, & any other gun free zones & your odds of survival increase dramatically

> You're wrong about Korea.

That's a matter of opinion. Most South Koreans are nationalistic like Psy (Gangnam Style rapper) and believe it is their ancient culture which propelled them to the miracle of propserity which they have today. The only hint of credit they give is to the Japanese who in the early part of the 1900's allowed 99% of the population to have surnames, built the rail system, electric grid, public infrastructure, outlawed permanent servitude (slavery), and began human rights in Korea.

My name is Lance wrote:

yep, almost as crazy as a bunch of primitive towelheads holding the mighty US military at bay for 12 years in the Hindu Kush with no satellites and fighter jets and tanks and missiles and bombs

I see we can refer to arabs at towelheads on Letsrun.com but have been warned not to mention Isreal on pain of banishment. America 2013.

[quote]Gold Counter wrote:

I didn't read every post so pardon me if this has been mentioned.

2. Once this civil war starts you can better believe that many other countries that hate America would get involved. One can easily imagine a scenario in which Islamic militants would begin to kill people on BOTH sides.

Really. A scenario in which Islamic militants would begin to kill people on BOTH sides? Lots of Islamic militants roaming the USA are there?

You watch too much tv and too many movies where the villification of arabs and Muslims has been going on for several decades. Never underestimate the gullibility of the public. And the folks who run the entertainment industry (which includes the news) sure don't. And they ain't arabs

arming kindergartners?

A lot of people die in S. Chicago every year from guns. It's the craziest thing - these guns just apparently sneak out at night & drag themselves down to the street corner, where they jump into some thug's hand & then fire bullets at other thugs. These guns are, by & large, illegally used.

Soooo...explain how making guns illegal will stop illegal gun use in places where it's currently already illegal.

why are we so consumed with protecting 5 yr old kids, but rabidly in favor of torturing unborn babies to death? And if protecting children better is our aim, why not do what a lot of schools, courthouses, & govt facilities already do & simply put an armed security officer on campus? What exactly is crazy about that?

Good post Lance...but the fact is that no one has the balls to state is that black areas have much higher murder rates than white. Rather than take the guns off black gangsters, Obama wants to take them off rural whites.

If the Yanks weren't armed the Brits would still be in charge.

Well, how about that, you have a clue and stated some facts for a change. Let's take it point by point:

1) Yes, "guns do not make you safer," the facts prove this. Very good.

2) Yes, it is extremely rare, a "tiny exception", (unless you live in a true gang warfare zone) to have "other people with guns shooting at you." Very true and well-put. So why are so many nuts like you armed to the hilt and paranoid to death about this happening?? And if the times other people are shooting at you is such a tiny exception to one's normal daily activities, or is such a rare possibility (put another way), but having guns in your house makes you less safe all of the other moments of your life....why have guns in your house?? It's 1 + 1 = 2. Only an irrational person would have a gun for 'protection' once they've examined the facts and statistics regarding gun ownership and homicides, suicides, accidents, etc.

You really think people only get shot at it in "gun free zones"?? Don't be stupid.

Well why not, where in the constitution or 2nd amendment does it state there is an age requirement in the "right to bear arms" ? nowhere. And according to you guys, more guns = more safety, so.... why not? We can't rely on some lazy teachers to defend our kids. So arm our children, and yes, even kindergartners! This is completely rational. If you disagree you hate america and are not doing your job to protect your children. My 5 y.o. got an Uzi from Santa. Jesus was smiling like crazy up in heaven!

Obviously if you have lax gun law enforcement, and people can buy guns just about anywhere without a background check (gun show/internet loopholes), and certainly get get guns from areas that don't have bans, having a ban in one small area won't do anything. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is currently (thanks to NRA and other gun nuts like you) no will to really have strict gun control laws or enforcement of those laws. As long as you are not the one dying, what do you care, right? Plus, you need guns to protect yourself from all those people with.....GUNS! Yeah, guns are dangerous man, they are killing tools plain and simple, so, yeah, we need more guns to protect ourselves against those evil guns.

a) you don't care about pregnancies being ended, stop pretending you do (if you did care, you'd be adopting some special needs kids who might otherwise have been aborted, but you don't. Or you wouldn't be against so many anti-poverty/welfare programs that might convince some people not to abort (you know that is part of the decision sometimes). And if we invested more in poorer areas, and worked harder for ending cycles of poverty, there would be less f-up's having unwanted pregnancies, etc, etc, etc. But you're against all that. You just to force people to carry pregnancies to term and then......let the kid die. That'd be MUCH better! And weren't you bragging about not getting a flu shot? Well, I got news for you big guy, you could get the flu, pass it on to some pregnant women and .....voila.....a much higher chance of miscarriage or stillborn, i.e., YOU HELPED KILL A BABY!! But that won't change your behavior. So once again, stop pretending you care about ANYone other than yourself, especially "people" aren't even people, i.e., clusters of cells inside a woman. It's laughable, trust me).

b) armed security guard did nothing in Columbine

c) you are talking training and arming 10,000's of people, who is gonna pay for that? You ready for a tax hike?

d) There is no evidence that bringing guns into a school environment would make people safer. A guard could be ambushed in one second and be victim #1. Easy. Secondly, having some idiot trigger happy guards (you'd likely want them to be private guards paid minimum wage, aka, high level people) in a school would likely make things more dangerous for the kids. More guns = more tragedies.

what are the odds of your house burning down? Yet, you have homeowners insurance. What are the odds of you dying prematurely? Yet you have life insurance.

What are the odds a disarmed country is taken over by a despot/dictator? has it ever happened before?

And why do gun owners have to prove their 'need' for owning guns? It's a right clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. There's no further justification needed..

Having guns in my house doesn't make me any less safe than you having a car in your garage makes you less safe. Many more times the # of people killed by guns die in auto accidents, so using your 'logic', we should all abandon our vehicles and enjoy the increased safety statistically proven from avoiding riding in cars.

Aurora Colo theater: gun free zone

Sandy Hoook elementary: gun free zone

Colombine: gun free zone

Va Tech: gun free zone

Utoya Island, Norway: gun free zone

But yeah, it's stupid to believe psychos choose gun free zones to commit their mass shootings. My bad, bro'

BAAHAAHAAHAHA! Yeah, T-Rex. the thugs in S. Chicago order their guns online and attend gun shows! HAHAHAHA! Good one, bro'. Made me chuckle!

No way to know what I care about, as far as babies go, other than reading my arguments against torturing them to death as a form of BC. And yes, we are considering adoption, thankyouverymuch. How 'bout you? Yeah, I didn't think so, bro'

Lemme axe you somethin' bro'. If an armed security guard 'did nothing' at Columbine, why bother to call the cops the next time there's a mass shooting? If having an ineffective armed cop already on site @ Colombine is your reason against doing same for all skools, then it makes no sense to bother calling the cops during the next shooting. Why call another cop, if the one already here 'did nothing'?? By your 'logic', armed cops aren't the answer to dealing with psycho shooters. So what is your suggestion? More laws? Did the last dozen mass shooters break any existing gun laws? Every single one of them did, right? Maybe during the next mass shooting, the skool principal should just remind the shooter that he's breaking the law? That'll work..

As a Marine, I would say that 75 to 80% of the military would be on the civilians side, I know that the corps will be, and I'd say that that is enough!!!!

Pondering Pete wrote:

If the government decided to abandon democracy and the constitution, and had the military in support, would civilians be able to overpower them?

This would never, ever happen. But to answer your question, no, absolutely no chance a few thousand gun-wielding hillbillies could overthrow the most overfunded military in the history of the world.

wompwompwommppppp wrote:

Pondering Pete wrote:

If the government decided to abandon democracy and the constitution, and had the military in support, would civilians be able to overpower them?

This would never, ever happen. But to answer your question, no, absolutely no chance a few thousand gun-wielding hillbillies could overthrow the most overfunded military in the history of the world.

You either have zero reading comprehension or are a very bad troll.

0/10

My name is Lance wrote:

And why do gun owners have to prove their 'need' for owning guns? It's a right clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.

"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"

I don't see the word "gun" in there at all. The 2nd amendment is wholly open to interpretation and limitation.

Clam Evans wrote:

"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"

I don't see the word "gun" in there at all. The 2nd amendment is wholly open to interpretation and limitation.

It is not open to interpretation. It says "arms," without qualification. The colonial militia wasn't fighting the British with just muskets and rifles. They had cannon. Gunboats. Howitzers. Explosives. Military stuff.

Nowadays it means the people have the right to own tanks and fighter planes. But if they try to exercise that right, the government will throw them in prison as terrorists.

IMHO . . . first, the government would get no support from the run of the mill population . . . second, most of the military would refuse to attack their own brothers and sisters, etc. and if you think fighting an insurgency in Iraq is bad try fighting on the streets of your home town . . . I do believe that the citizens would win in the end.

But most likely not without a lot of pain and bloodshed

Maybe the more important question is: if England decided to take us back and our military was too busy protected our oil interests abroad, could we fight the redcoats off again?!

Do you not remember something called the Civil War??? It took about four years and cost 620,000 dead in battle and about 1.5 million overall. What is relevant to this thread is that it featured the Union Army fighting against an armed insurrection. The war was nowhere near as asymmetrical as an armed revolt today would be, assuming that the army would retain nearly all of its fighters, bombers, nukes, destroyers, battleships, etc. While historically guerrilla warfare has been overwhelmingly "successful" (at great, great loss of life) in terms of winning a battle of attrition against superior forces, direct resistance would meet with overwhelmingly superior force and organization. And remember what won the Civil War, a no holds barred campaign of burning through the south, Sherman's March to the Sea (together with some other campaigns, of course, numerical superiority, industrial dominance, and so forth), which indicated the willingness to engage in a scorched earth campaign of total destruction (fortunately not destroying the historic city of Savannah where Sherman's troops were quartered at the end). Such a campaign given today's weapons would enable complete and utter destruction of any regions in opposition to the government. So, no, it is not a reasonable idea and in fact on the very small scale this fantasy leads to tragedies.

That racist murderer also talked like you do about black people. You do know that the gun death stat applies to the total population and many of the deaths are suicides, since guns provide a definitive measure.