Jump to content

What do y'all think about guns and gun control?


Recommended Posts

I support the second amendment because I oppose the disarming of the proletariat.

gun-control-facts-infographic.png

ar-15-assault-rifle-ban-facts-infographic.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This tells me you don't know much about firearms.   The absolute best home defense weapon is a shotgun. Not a short one either. Semi-auto or a pump action. Eight rounds.   They are

That's a blatant straw man and misrepresentation of the pro-gun position.   It's also a needless ad hom.   Most gun owners are considering how to defend themselves and the things t

Debated by experts, but certainly that is a perfectly fine choice.  Especially if you own a shotgun for any of the many tasks they can be used for (hunting, sports, pest control etc) then using the we

Posted Images

  • Moderator

Oooof... stepping into a big topic.

 

Been here before, not sure I want to get into it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts have changed over the years.  Growing up in a safe country like NZ I didn't see a need for guns so just saw it as a negative.  I now see that as a very narrow view, and my thoughts on guns has changed to "it depends on where you live and the threat that you are under".  Due to this I don't see any blanket rules working for everyone in such different circumstances.

I don't think American's often get this right, in that many of the people who live in safe areas seem afraid of "what ifs" rather than actually needing such weapons for self defence.  If you live in a drug ridden, gang filled, violence filled area then absolutely keep yourself safe.  If you live in most middle class communities then violence is not something that occurs often.

In Americas case the guns are already so numerous that it is impossible to ever get them back.  A ban will not work.  There are more guns than people, and more sold daily.

 

As for the list of reasons above, many of those are not good reasons and heavily debated. Some just seem worded in dodgy ways which makes me wary about how it is presented.  For example in the second box it compares rifle deaths with knife, blunt and bare hands, yet later we see that handguns are over double all of those put together.  If you are looking at gun control then that is a scary large number, which wasn't immediately mentioned.

 

"Guns used in self defence 2.5 million times" is a false statistic.  The way it was arrived at was looking at all "incidents" where a gun was present but not fired and no violence occurred.  This doesn't actually means the gun did anything, more likely diplomacy de-escalated the incident.  The original study said it was nigh on impossible to ever know how many times a gun was drawn in self defence and made the difference in the situation.  Most of the time such things are never reported to the police, so numbers simply don't exist.  It is obviously not zero, but the way the statistic is used is to say it saved 2.5 million lives which is false.

 

"92% of shootings happened in a gun free zone" - there is no such thing as a gun free zone.  Areas that have tighter gun sales laws, still have guns come into the area on a constant basis.  You only get gun free if all areas are, and that is not the case in the US. 

 

"AR does not stand for assault rifle" - it does in video games and anyone who learns the acronym from there will use it elsewhere.  The context matters.  Really needed to be worded "The AR in AR15 doesn't stand for assault rifle".

 

"The founding fathers wanted us to have the same weaponry as the government" - Really stretching there.  To think the founding fathers would have thought everyone should have an Abrams tank in their backyard, a SAM launcher in their garage and a nuke in the back of their truck is way OTT. The technology the founding fathers were looking at was multiple centuries ago, and cannot be compared to modern warfare. The general population cannot fight a highly trained, well equipped and well supplied professional army.  Giving Bob an assault rifle is not going to slow down the US military if they decide to roll over the top of him.  Isn't the balance better held with the separation of the branches of the military?  Wasn't the point of including 'a well regulated militia' to point out that people need training, coordination and command structure to be a useful fighting force in such a conflict?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using two hands is best for stability and accuracy.

 

Unless using a scope, keep both eyes open when aiming down sights.

 

Squeeze the trigger to fire.

 

Keep your arms bent and don't lock them.

 

Flex and bend your arms with recoil.

 

Keep your weapon cleaned and maintained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
5 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Using two hands is best for stability and accuracy.

 

Unless using a scope, keep both eyes open when aiming down sights.

 

Squeeze the trigger to fire.

 

Keep your arms bent and don't lock them.

 

Flex and bend your arms with recoil.

 

Keep your weapon cleaned and maintained.

 

Oh well done. Nice play here. However, I don't think the intention behind the words "gun control" in the title referred to controlling your firearm under use. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Using two hands is best for stability and accuracy.

But then you can't have a gun in your other hand, and we all know style points for slow motion dives is the most important thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 10:36 PM, Wertbag said:

 

"Guns used in self defence 2.5 million times" is a false statistic.  The way it was arrived at was looking at all "incidents" where a gun was present but not fired and no violence occurred.  This doesn't actually means the gun did anything, more likely diplomacy de-escalated the incident.  The original study said it was nigh on impossible to ever know how many times a gun was drawn in self defence and made the difference in the situation.  Most of the time such things are never reported to the police, so numbers simply don't exist.  It is obviously not zero, but the way the statistic is used is to say it saved 2.5 million lives which is false.

 

"92% of shootings happened in a gun free zone" - there is no such thing as a gun free zone.  Areas that have tighter gun sales laws, still have guns come into the area on a constant basis.  You only get gun free if all areas are, and that is not the case in the US. 

 

"AR does not stand for assault rifle" - it does in video games and anyone who learns the acronym from there will use it elsewhere.  The context matters.  Really needed to be worded "The AR in AR15 doesn't stand for assault rifle".

 

"The founding fathers wanted us to have the same weaponry as the government" - Really stretching there.  To think the founding fathers would have thought everyone should have an Abrams tank in their backyard, a SAM launcher in their garage and a nuke in the back of their truck is way OTT. The technology the founding fathers were looking at was multiple centuries ago, and cannot be compared to modern warfare. The general population cannot fight a highly trained, well equipped and well supplied professional army.  Giving Bob an assault rifle is not going to slow down the US military if they decide to roll over the top of him.  Isn't the balance better held with the separation of the branches of the military?  Wasn't the point of including 'a well regulated militia' to point out that people need training, coordination and command structure to be a useful fighting force in such a conflict?

 

Ironically, the presence of a firearm can force diplomacy. One could easily argue that in a situation where a firearm was "present" and a diplomatic resolution occurred, that if it hadn't been there, the resolution would not have been diplomatic in the first place.
I agree that it wouldn't happen every time, but you also seem to be downplaying how often it likely is a relevant factor just as much as people who quote that statistic are overstating it.

It is true that there are no "numbers" that can prove that a specific number of incidents, but it's also misleading to say that guns aren't responsible for forcing a peaceful resolution either because of the same issue.

"Assault Rifles" are no more dangerous than any other long gun with a similar fire rate that uses the same rounds. Nothing that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle makes it any more dangerous than any other rifle.

Also, video games are not real life. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, and as far as I'm aware, no real life firearms use AR to designate Assault Rifle. This is a case of confusing colloquial speech with technical speech. It's really no different than someone saying "It's just a theory" when talking about a scientific theory. It's just that person being wrong and not understanding what they are talking about, not a problem on the scientific theory's end.

There are literal signs in a lot of places in the US that say "Gun Free Zone" indicating that firearms are not permitted. These signs are often backed by laws and getting caught with a firearm within that "zone" can lead to arrests and prosecution. This includes if it is secured and concealed.  So yes, there actually are "gun free zones", it's just a designation for a zone where a ban on firearms is enforced.

Actually, yes they did. The fact that they were unaware of technological advancements is irrelevant. Their intention was that citizens should have access to military quality weaponry.

They actually intended the population to be able to oppose and overthrow the government by force of arms if necessary. Some of them actually expected it to eventually happen.

If the founding fathers were brought back to live today somehow, they'd probably express surprise that we didn't overthrow the established government and form a new one by now.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Ironically, the presence of a firearm can force diplomacy. One could easily argue that in a situation where a firearm was "present" and a diplomatic resolution occurred, that if it hadn't been there, the resolution would not have been diplomatic in the first place.
I agree that it wouldn't happen every time, but you also seem to be downplaying how often it likely is a relevant factor.

It is true that there are no "numbers" that can prove that a specific number of incidents, but it's also misleading to say that guns aren't responsible  either because of the same issue.

"Assault Rifles" are no more dangerous than any other long gun with a similar fire rate that uses the same rounds. Nothing that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle makes it any more dangerous than any other rifle.

Also, video games are not real life. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, and as far as I'm aware, no real life firearms use AR to designate Assault Rifle. This is a case of confusing colloquial speech with technical speech. It's really no different than someone saying "It's just a theory" when talking about a scientific theory. It's just that person being wrong and not understanding what they are talking about, not a problem on the scientific theory's end.

There are literal signs in a lot of places in the US that say "Gun Free Zone" indicating that firearms are not permitted. These signs are often backed by laws and getting caught with a firearm within that "zone" can lead to arrests and prosecution. This includes if it is secured and concealed.  So yes, there actually are "gun free zones", it's just a designation for a zone where a ban on firearms is enforced.

Actually, yes they did. The fact that they were unaware of technological advancements is irrelevant. Their intention was that citizens should have access to military quality weaponry.

They actually intended the population to be able to oppose and overthrow the government by force of arms if necessary. Some of them actually expected it to eventually happen.

If the founding fathers were brought back to live today somehow, they'd probably express surprise that we didn't overthrow the established government and form a new one by now.

Amen preach

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW (which is pretty much nothing...) I am for relatively strict gun laws. I will never understand the love that Americans have for their personal weapons of mass destruction. But we've been all over this issue before, and I don't particularly wish to get back into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

FWIW (which is pretty much nothing...) I am for relatively strict gun laws. I will never understand the love that Americans have for their personal weapons of mass destruction. But we've been all over this issue before, and I don't particularly wish to get back into it.

Can I ask what country you live in?  America is certainly unique in the size of its gun culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

     I think, in general, the founders thought differently.  I'm not going to get into this topic again though.  Just take a look here.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

I agree that it wouldn't happen every time, but you also seem to be downplaying how often it likely is a relevant factor just as much as people who quote that statistic are overstating it.

As I said its certainly not zero, but the fact is we have no data on how often it helps verse making a situation worse.  As far as an argument in favour of guns, its not a good one.  We can say "In some circumstances a gun could stop a situation from escalating" but vague as that is its pretty weak sauce.

 

11 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

"Assault Rifles" are no more dangerous than any other long gun with a similar fire rate that uses the same rounds. Nothing that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle makes it any more dangerous than any other rifle.

Very true, but I don't think that was claimed here?

 

11 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Also, video games are not real life. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, and as far as I'm aware, no real life firearms use AR to designate Assault Rifle. This is a case of confusing colloquial speech with technical speech.

I had thought the confusion was people thinking an AR15 literally stood for assault rifle?  Certainly wrong.  As for video games not being real life, that is obvious but it doesn't make the language used invalid.  AR is a very obvious abbreviation to use, reducing it to the acronym for easy use is just a faster way to communicate.  The hundreds of millions of players of Fortnite, PUBG or Call of Duty use the term, and as such the term is being well used to communicate.  It may not be a term that the gun industry uses, but simply stating AR never means assault rifle is untrue.  Of course whether it does or not doesn't actually change gun control in any way.

 

11 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

So yes, there actually are "gun free zones", it's just a designation for a zone where a ban on firearms is enforced.

Sorry, let me clarify.  There are no zones free of guns when a country is full of guns.  A sign and some hope does not equal an area that is magically free from guns entering it.

When we talk about legal gun free zones, it is usually in regards to single buildings, schools or individual properties, but those locations are based within towns, cities and states that allow weapons and are full of them.  What I'm saying is there's no where in the US that is a zone free of guns.

 

11 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Their intention was that citizens should have access to military quality weaponry.

Should people be allowed nukes?  An extreme example, but if you are asking for complete equality of weaponry with the government that is the ultimate weapon...

 

11 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

They actually intended the population to be able to oppose and overthrow the government by force of arms if necessary. Some of them actually expected it to eventually happen.

If the founding fathers were brought back to live today somehow, they'd probably express surprise that we didn't overthrow the established government and form a new one by now.

I've heard this before and it never made any sense.  You would be well aware of how powerful the US military is?  We are talking the most technologically advanced, well trained, well armed, well supported, veteran soldiers with world class command and control.  In a world war with everyone verse America you'd still have a real debatable outcome.  Now take that image of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen and imagine Joe Blow with his AR15 at home standing up to them...  

Who in the general population has agreed to join a militia and overthrow the government if required?  How are those people contacted if required?  Who makes the call that a government is bad enough to be overthrown and therefore can assemble the militia?  Once you have a militia who trains, supplies and leads them?

There is no structure, there is no plan and there is no squad training.  Throw those people against your Seals, Marines, Delta, Rangers, Green Berets or any of the other special forces group and it will be a massacre.  Musket verse musket, sure they can do some damage and numbers matter, but modern warfare is a completely different beast. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

The "statistic" "92% of mass shootings take place in Gun Free Zones" may well be misleading.

 

Where do most mass shootings take place? We know quite a number take place at schools. At least one took place at a concert. One would expect these zones to be "gun free" wouldn't they? And because these are areas where people congregate making a more likely target for a shooter wouldn't it be the case that that's where shootings are going to take palce?

 

It's like saying 92% of drownings happen in pools. Well no shit. That's not an argument against gun control. It's just presenting misleading stats.

 

The first point on that list misses the point. Intentionally driving into someone is illegal as well - that doesn't stop us from registration and enforcing road laws.

 

AR in the AR-15 doesn't stand for Assault rifle, but assault rifles are a proper designation for the rifles that meet that particular designation. You can still buy Assault rifles in the US, but they are very expensive, they have a lot of paperwork and checks required, and they will be older than 1986.

 

Saying AR doesn't stand for assault rifle also misses the point in the entire discussion. The Christchurch shooter in New Zealand used an AR-15. It's capable of 90 rounds a minute in the hands of a practiced user. That is the point - those type of weapon, classify them as you will, are capable of spitting out huge amounts of damage far beyond any defense or hunting need. In a defense situation if you haven't gunned down the attacker within 2-3 shots then either they've run away (yay) or you are dead most of the time.

 

Now the M-16 is an Assault rifle based on the AR-15. The primary difference? The AR-15 civilian version is not capable of full auto fire.

 

Anyhoo.. I thought I said I wasn't getting into this. Damn it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Can I ask what country you live in?  America is certainly unique in the size of its gun culture.

 

Canada.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of guns here, and there are plenty of people who like guns here. What we don't have, or at least what I've never witnessed here, is the pseudo-religious attachment that some Americans have for theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One way I look at it is the idea of the right tool for the job.  If you are hunting large game then you will absolutely need a scoped rifle, whereas small, fast moving targets maybe better handled with a shotgun.  For home defense or personal defense the best weapon is going to be a handgun.  While for the zombie apocalypse you are likely to run out of ammo before you run out of targets, so a sword or spear would be a better choice.

 

We have a hunting industry in NZ, with wild pigs, deer, rabbits and other introduced species destroying habitat and putting native species at risk.  No one here has any problem with people owning guns and using them for these purposes.  Its the right tool for the job.

 

I don't see a situation that the general population will come across where an assault rifle is the right tool.  While you can use an AR15 for hunting, it is generally considered underpowered, with many consumer assault rifles not being as rugged as dedicated hunting/sporting rifles but often having a higher cost.   In general most hunters prefer to shoot bolt actions because they are more accurate, ergonomic and lighter to carry.  If the intent is to get meat or hide, then the less number of holes you punch in it the better.

Assault rifles are designed with combat engagements up to a few hundred meters being their purpose, and that is where they excel.  That is not a situation that any civilian should ever find themselves in.  For civilian use it is not the right tool for the tasks at hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Assault rifles are designed with combat engagements up to a few hundred meters being their purpose, and that is where they excel.  That is not a situation that any civilian should ever find themselves in.  For civilian use it is not the right tool for the tasks at hand.

Really? In the past couple of months with rioting going on, buildings being burned, masses of people becoming violent you can't see a situation where an ar-15 would be useful? I've said it before. The constitution (specifically the second amendment) protects our right to weapons of warfare. For the purpose of creating militias if our own govt was overthrown or turned on us. Several people in here laughed at that prospect saying it would be impossible for our little ar-15s to win a war. But in the past few months I've seen with my own eyes that our government can't even stop people that aren't using guns. Let alone if an armed population rose up and fought. So I still contend that military style weapons are needed. And I will continue to vote for those that will protect our rights to those weapons. 

        On another note if you've noticed in recent years they have re-defined what a mass shooting is. Now it's just 4 or more people being shot. So any family of 4 or more that ends in murder suicide, any gang violence involving 4 or more people shot, and of course the few actual mass shootings that happen all count in the statistics. I can only assume that the redefinining of mass shootings plays into politics. The more numbers they have the more reason they have to push gun control. 

      At some point in time an event will happen which will require the firepower of military style weapons for regular citizens. Be it a natural disaster, local riots that end up threatening your life, or an actual war on your soil, at some point in time it will happen. It's not a matter of if but when. I like to keep my options open when it comes to the right tool for the job. 

 

DB

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Several people in here laughed at that prospect saying it would be impossible for our little ar-15s to win a war. But in the past few months I've seen with my own eyes that our government can't even stop people that aren't using guns. Let alone if an armed population rose up and fought.

 

This is a blatently silly argument.

 

The government of the US definitely could stop the protests if they really wanted to. It's only a question of what measures they are willing to take. Fortunately, they have not yet gone full Tienanmen Square, but they definitely could. And if they really wanted to go down that road, it wouldn't help at all if the people had a few ARs kicking around. The government has drones. That's not a war that the populace can win. The only question is, 'will the government wage a war against its own people?'. I hope we never find out the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

This is a blatently silly argument.

 

The government of the US definitely could stop the protests if they really wanted to. It's only a question of what measures they are willing to take. Fortunately, they have not yet gone full Tienanmen Square, but they definitely could. And if they really wanted to go down that road, it wouldn't help at all if the people had a few ARs kicking around. The government has drones. That's not a war that the populace can win. The only question is, 'will the government wage a war against its own people?'. I hope we never find out the answer.

Once again there were over 3 million ARs sold in the country in 2012. I haven't looked again but I'm sure that number is much more now. Balk at it all you want. But if the people truly rose up they wouldn't have enough drones to handle it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Once again there were over 3 million ARs sold in the country in 2012. I haven't looked again but I'm sure that number is much more now. Balk at it all you want. But if the people truly rose up they wouldn't have enough drones to handle it. 

 

Believe what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
40 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Once again there were over 3 million ARs sold in the country in 2012. I haven't looked again but I'm sure that number is much more now. Balk at it all you want. But if the people truly rose up they wouldn't have enough drones to handle it. 

 

Military strategists have done war game scenarios and have concluded that the USA could conceivably fight the entire world's armed forces to a standstill. That's just how powerful the US military is... and a few million wannabe's with AR-15's are going to stop tanks and planes and daisy cutters? Come on mate, it's a wet pipe dream. 

 

The only question, as D said, is would the Government be willing to utilize the full might of the military against such an uprising? Also remembering that a good bulk of the population will say it is the governments duty to use the military to protect them from these internal threats. Already the US is using unmarked vehicles to kidnap people, and that's with just a bit of unrest, and minor violence going on. You start throwing your AR-15 around and the Trump (Or any president probably) will get tough and throw the military at them.

 

Another thing to note is that a comparatively small percent of people own most of the guns... but you can only use two weapons at once... and even then not as effectively as using one. There are people who own hundreds if not thousands of guns... all largely useless unless you can had them off to people will to point it at another human and pull the trigger. 

 

There were some studies done, and they found most soldiers wouldn't actually shoot to kill. So they come up with a training regime that basically overrides the inclination not to kill with a shoot first mentality. Most civilian people don't have this training. Just another reason why I think the AR-15 upraising is doomed to fail.

 

PS good to see you again - I note you've come in on a gun thread again :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Really? In the past couple of months with rioting going on, buildings being burned, masses of people becoming violent you can't see a situation where an ar-15 would be useful?

What I'm saying is not to have no weapons, but to have the best weapon for the situation.  In the case of riots you may want to defend yourself, your home or your business. In most cases the threat is enough without actually killing, so whether you had a shotgun, a handgun or an AR15 you have escalated the event to a life and death situation, with the hope the criminal will take flight.  Defending yourself in an enclosed environment (house, shop etc) is better with a shorter weapon.  If you then wish to exit the building and either conceal carry or safely holster when law enforcement arrive, a handgun is much better.  A handgun is also cheaper, easier to store and easier to use.  You are not going to be a situation where a 30 round clip is a requirement, where a sustained firefight occurs or where engagement occurs at 300 meters.  

 

Ooh, conspiracy theory, Armalite inspire the debate on the AR15 as a giant marketing ploy.  There are plenty of other consumer assault rifle style of weapon, but the news cycle is fixated purely on the AR15.  Sales surge and Armalite do amazingly... 🤯

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't agree because there is always a possibility of war in any country. And our 2and amendment specifically protects our rights to those weapons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Military strategists have done war game scenarios and have concluded that the USA could conceivably fight the entire world's armed forces to a standstill. That's just how powerful the US military is... and a few million wannabe's with AR-15's are going to stop tanks and planes and daisy cutters? Come on mate, it's a wet pipe dream. 

 

The only question, as D said, is would the Government be willing to utilize the full might of the military against such an uprising? Also remembering that a good bulk of the population will say it is the governments duty to use the military to protect them from these internal threats. Already the US is using unmarked vehicles to kidnap people, and that's with just a bit of unrest, and minor violence going on. You start throwing your AR-15 around and the Trump (Or any president probably) will get tough and throw the military at them.

 

Another thing to note is that a comparatively small percent of people own most of the guns... but you can only use two weapons at once... and even then not as effectively as using one. There are people who own hundreds if not thousands of guns... all largely useless unless you can had them off to people will to point it at another human and pull the trigger. 

 

There were some studies done, and they found most soldiers wouldn't actually shoot to kill. So they come up with a training regime that basically overrides the inclination not to kill with a shoot first mentality. Most civilian people don't have this training. Just another reason why I think the AR-15 upraising is doomed to fail.

 

PS good to see you again - I note you've come in on a gun thread again :D 

Its naive for you to assume it would only be the armed populace that would fight for one thing. Our country is split in half on the issues. I was in the army and our oath was the protect the constitution from enemies foreign or domestic. So not only would you have an armed populace of Americans, you would have a portion of the army as well. Many military men and women in america will not fire on American citizens in that scenario. All the active military and veterans I know would choose the people rather than the govt. That's america 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

PS good to see you again - I note you've come in on a gun thread again :D 

Btw good to see you again as well. 

 

But also picture this. Say it's not a civil war. But someone attacking us on American soil. 3 million plus ar-15s joining the fight with the existing american army is an even more formidable force?  Agreed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

But someone attacking us on American soil. 3 million plus ar-15s joining the fight with the existing american army is an even more formidable force?  Agreed?

That's getting pretty fantastical...  For an attack on America they would need to get passed the worlds most advanced and largest navy, passed the worlds largest and most advanced airforce, then handle the 1.3 million military personnel, before getting to the 450,000 National Guard troops...  so sure, a conscription/resistance/gorilla force could be formed, but it seems pretty unnecessary at this point.  In fact it could be quite negative, adding in hordes of civilians who have no squad training or tactics, no central command, limited weapon training and no body armour and then your military, which is trying to protect your population, now has to try and get these people out of danger.

Really if that was a task for which anyone was intending their gun purchase could be used, they should be ordering body armour, helmet, communication equipment, joining a training regiment and really at that point why wouldn't they just join the army or national guard?

Link to post
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.