U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2019, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,662 posts, read 2,843,135 times
Reputation: 1753

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
How long has our fully armored US military been fighting in Afghanistan against people with AK's and improvised devices?

Oh yeah, around 20 years.

Why is that if what you state is correct?
Oh, come on now. Even a basic knowledge of Afghan history and geography explains that. Common sense explains that - Americans in Afghanistan were fighting in a nation where they didn't speak the language, didn't understand the culture, didn't know much about the history, weren't familiar with the terrain, and were completely beholden to locals who had their own agendas to provide guidance and counsel.

On the other hand, American troops fighting in their own nation where they speak the language and are deeply familiar with the culture can be deployed to areas where they know the terrain. They would literally be fighting in their own backyards.

Above all, American civilians are NOT Afghans and your argument falls apart with even the lightest scrutiny. Americans do not live in a country that has been invaded countless times in its history. They are not part of a warrior culture like many Afghans, whose families have been fighting against invaders for generations. Americans would flip out if they lost their wi-fi for a day; how would they endure the hardships of civil war without any formal training? They could definitely pose a major hazard to the military, but they could never defeat them.

Americans and most Westerners enjoy their comforts too much and they are not part of a warrior culture that dates back hundreds of years. Afghans have little or nothing to lose and they fight that way. I cannot see Americans, who suffer such high rates of obesity and accompanying health problems posing anywhere near the threat of Afghan civilians for whom deprivation is the rule rather than the exception. Many Afghans were born shooting at soldiers from the most powerful armies in the world; American gun enthusiasts shoot at paper targets. When the Americans landed in Afghanistan, they had been continuously at war for more then 20 years. During that time, they brought the Soviet Union to its knees, just as they had done to the British one hundred years earlier.

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. Sure, millions of American civilians with guns could give plenty of trouble to the US armed forces. In the end, few would actually be willing to take up arms and risk losing their comfortable lives over anything less than an existential threat. So really, it would probably be a few thousand (maybe 10-20) in loosely organized and uncoordinated militias spread out over vast territory with no central planning, organization, or chain-of-command.

The differences when one looks at Afghanistan or even Vietnam show that your comparison is not an insightful one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2019, 04:18 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,410 posts, read 2,361,177 times
Reputation: 4525
This goes decades back. I have owned several AR15's. The early ones without bolt assist. One with collapsible stock, then the AR came out in AK .308 round. Then my favorite was the HK 91 G3, The rifle I wish I had kept. But I can tell you, sitting at home with an AR15 and 30 round magazine available to you did give you some security. The years of having fun with these and see the damage they can do, No the public should not be able to have these. They derived from weapons of war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,662 posts, read 2,843,135 times
Reputation: 1753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
1.) For starters the enemy in this scenario (the US military) has a complete and comprehensive knowledge of the terrain, society, language, and information network. Things they lacked in both Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

2.) Armed Americans lack the organizational structure needed to be effective on a wide scale. Who would be in charge? what would be the strategic and tactical goals? How would one group of Armed rebels communicate with another group of armed rebels? There is no organizational group in place that can do what the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the Viet Cong could do.

3.) Americans are not remotely as tough and determined as the Viet Cong or Islamic extremist were. Could you hall 80 pounds of gear over wet, disease ridden jungle mountains all the while getting bombed every other day? Probably not, most Americans are too soft and fat to ever do such a thing. Would you or your buddies strap explosives to yourself and go on a suicide mission. Probably not.

4.) Also all three groups received widespread for support in terms of logistics, funding and weapons. Something Armed Americans would not have.
Dang, I didn't read this comment before I posted my own reply with many of the same ideas and examples. KenFresno is able to condense some of the points I brought up into clear and concise examples

I totally agree with you, Ken. Great post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,662 posts, read 2,843,135 times
Reputation: 1753
Quote:
Originally Posted by RcHydro View Post
This goes decades back. I have owned several AR15's. The early ones without bolt assist. One with collapsible stock, then the AR came out in AK .308 round. Then my favorite was the HK 91 G3, The rifle I wish I had kept. But I can tell you, sitting at home with an AR15 and 30 round magazine available to you did give you some security. The years of having fun with these and see the damage they can do, No the public should not be able to have these. They derived from weapons of war.
As a weapon of personal protection...what makes an AR superior to a 12-guage pump in the home? Unless you are involved in some serious gang sh*t, I doubt you would ever need a 30-round magazine to fend off violent intruders. I mean, what kind of scenario are you imagining?

As a defensive weapon when out on the town, the AR is impractical and kind of ridiculous. I would even venture to say that carrying one around in public slung over your shoulder makes you less safe. What about a 1911 pistol or a .38 revolver? Wouldn't that be a more practical and effective defensive weapon when out of the house?

To be honest, I'm happy to live in a country where gangbangers and people deeply involved in the street life are just about the only ones who carry handguns around (illegally, btw. There is no legal "carry" of handguns in Canada, except from home to the range and back, unless you are in a profession that requires it.) I know the street life well enough to avoid those who I can tell are deep in it. I also avoid parts of the city where they congregate because this is where rival groups from different parts of the city are most likely to meet up and start blasting at each other. Toronto has had serious gun violence problems this year, with 22 shootings in a week. That may not be high in some American cities, but it's crazy-high for Canada. Almost all the guns used in these shootings come from the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:08 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,182 posts, read 9,815,926 times
Reputation: 9814
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
1.) For starters the enemy in this scenario (the US military) has a complete and comprehensive knowledge of the terrain, society, language, and information network. Things they lacked in both Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

2.) Armed Americans lack the organizational structure needed to be effective on a wide scale. Who would be in charge? what would be the strategic and tactical goals? How would one group of Armed rebels communicate with another group of armed rebels? There is no organizational group in place that can do what the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the Viet Cong could do.

3.) Americans are not remotely as tough and determined as the Viet Cong or Islamic extremist were. Could you hall 80 pounds of gear over wet, disease ridden jungle mountains all the while getting bombed every other day? Probably not, most Americans are too soft and fat to ever do such a thing. Would you or your buddies strap explosives to yourself and go on a suicide mission. Probably not.

4.) Also all three groups received widespread for support in terms of logistics, funding and weapons. Something Armed Americans would not have.
It doesn't matter who would "win".

It matters that you don't personally side with the aggressor (the State).

Why do you support rape, torture, killing, etc? Why aren't you doing it yourself and insist on contracting it out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:10 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,182 posts, read 9,815,926 times
Reputation: 9814
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Oh, come on now. Even a basic knowledge of Afghan history and geography explains that. Common sense explains that - Americans in Afghanistan were fighting in a nation where they didn't speak the language, didn't understand the culture, didn't know much about the history, weren't familiar with the terrain, and were completely beholden to locals who had their own agendas to provide guidance and counsel.

On the other hand, American troops fighting in their own nation where they speak the language and are deeply familiar with the culture can be deployed to areas where they know the terrain. They would literally be fighting in their own backyards.

Above all, American civilians are NOT Afghans and your argument falls apart with even the lightest scrutiny. Americans do not live in a country that has been invaded countless times in its history. They are not part of a warrior culture like many Afghans, whose families have been fighting against invaders for generations. Americans would flip out if they lost their wi-fi for a day; how would they endure the hardships of civil war without any formal training? They could definitely pose a major hazard to the military, but they could never defeat them.

Americans and most Westerners enjoy their comforts too much and they are not part of a warrior culture that dates back hundreds of years. Afghans have little or nothing to lose and they fight that way. I cannot see Americans, who suffer such high rates of obesity and accompanying health problems posing anywhere near the threat of Afghan civilians for whom deprivation is the rule rather than the exception. Many Afghans were born shooting at soldiers from the most powerful armies in the world; American gun enthusiasts shoot at paper targets. When the Americans landed in Afghanistan, they had been continuously at war for more then 20 years. During that time, they brought the Soviet Union to its knees, just as they had done to the British one hundred years earlier.

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. Sure, millions of American civilians with guns could give plenty of trouble to the US armed forces. In the end, few would actually be willing to take up arms and risk losing their comfortable lives over anything less than an existential threat. So really, it would probably be a few thousand (maybe 10-20) in loosely organized and uncoordinated militias spread out over vast territory with no central planning, organization, or chain-of-command.

The differences when one looks at Afghanistan or even Vietnam show that your comparison is not an insightful one.
Why do you get to decide who lives and dies when that person didn't initiate force?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:18 PM
 
48,683 posts, read 45,791,168 times
Reputation: 15489
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
What percentage of people in the US with guns uses them unlawfully against others?

If 1% of people with mortgages defaulted on those mortgages, would you say too many people are given mortgages?
Not many, but you're missing the point. Consider this. Newark, NJ is a city of strict gun laws, in a state of very strict gun laws. And yet, there is still alot of killing. Plenty of people get their hands on guns in Newark in spite of the law, and commit murder. New Hampshire is as gun friendly as they come. It has the country's lowest murder rate. Plenty of people have guns, but how many people walk around with, on the occasion that they can (you don't need a license to carry a gun in New Hampshire). With 14.4% of New Hampshire's population owning a gun, not many. In New Hampshire, gun ownership is easy and not everyone feels the need to walk around with a gun. In Newark, it's next to impossible to get a gun, and there is alot of violence.
Wyoming has a pretty high rate of gun ownership. It has a low murder rate. Alaska has a high rate of gun ownership. It has one of the highest murder rates (the highest rate of rape) in the USA.

To me, an armed society can be a polite society. However, a law abiding society is a polite society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 07:35 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,406 posts, read 11,735,444 times
Reputation: 13486
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
As a weapon of personal protection...what makes an AR superior to a 12-guage pump in the home? Unless you are involved in some serious gang sh*t, I doubt you would ever need a 30-round magazine to fend off violent intruders. I mean, what kind of scenario are you imagining?

As a defensive weapon when out on the town, the AR is impractical and kind of ridiculous. I would even venture to say that carrying one around in public slung over your shoulder makes you less safe. What about a 1911 pistol or a .38 revolver? Wouldn't that be a more practical and effective defensive weapon when out of the house?

To be honest, I'm happy to live in a country where gangbangers and people deeply involved in the street life are just about the only ones who carry handguns around (illegally, btw. There is no legal "carry" of handguns in Canada, except from home to the range and back, unless you are in a profession that requires it.) I know the street life well enough to avoid those who I can tell are deep in it. I also avoid parts of the city where they congregate because this is where rival groups from different parts of the city are most likely to meet up and start blasting at each other. Toronto has had serious gun violence problems this year, with 22 shootings in a week. That may not be high in some American cities, but it's crazy-high for Canada. Almost all the guns used in these shootings come from the US.

When I lived on my little ranch in my hometown I had a three gun rack with my go to's in it. A Mossberg 930, a 1911 Government and an AR 15. Each had its specific purpose for specific situations. When a pack of marauding coyote attacked my dogs in my front yard one night I grabbed the Mossberg. When a transient came in snooping around on another nigh it was my 1911 I grabbed. The shotgun probably would have been my choice were it daytime but it was dark and I needed one hand for a flashlight. The shotgun is not light equipped. I also used the AR when I took out a snooping yote in one of my pastures during foaling time. He wasn't a solo gopher hunter. He was a pack scout. He was a tad over 200 yards out and I ended him.


I don't live on the ranch anymore, but that same three gun combo sits in the same rack where I live now. I carry the 1911 most times when I go out. There have been incidents here in places no one suspected they would happen and I go out expecting the unexpected. In the apartment I now occupy as home sweet home the shotgun would be my first choice if anyone ever tried to break in. There is no way to get into this place by force without making a LOT of noise and a stealth entry is not going to happen either. I keep the shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot so over penetration into an adjacent apartment is not a concern. The only thing I might need the AR for defensive wise around here would be the possibility of drug dealers shooting up the complex or maybe a gang drive by but this isn't a bad area of town and neither are likely.


Possible but unlikely. The AR is pretty much just a competition piece and it goes with me on desert day trips and camping. If my gal is with me I take all three because the shotgun is easy for her to handle. She's not an avid shooter so it makes sense.


Most of the guns in gang hands here are stolen from military bases and guns have been known to "disappear" from police evidence as well. Stolen military weapons are common in gang hands here and nationwide. More common than stolen civilian weapons and the bad guys don't buy their weapons at Cabelas. I worked at a large military facility here for over 20 years and I can't even begin to say how much stuff, weapons and otherwise, came up missing out there over the years. And there's a LOT of military bases across the country.


Back in the 70s this facility I worked on had 20 M14s stolen at one time. It was Marine sentries who did it and they got caught. But they had already unloaded the weapons. They claimed they had buried them in one of the magazine areas but after extensive search they were never found. One year later one rifle was recovered. In Canada.


As to carrying an AR while out and about for defensive purposes it's legal to do so but I have never seen anyone do so. LOL, I suppose if a guy just wanted to draw attention to himself that would do it. Open carry is legal here and a lot of people do so. I prefer to conceal my weapon but I have open carried before. Nobody pays it much mind. Tourists occasionally freak out and call 911 in a panic. The SO dispatch just asks them if the person they are calling about is threatening people and if the answer is no they explain it is not unusual for folks to be openly armed here. Very rarely do such calls get and actual deputy response.


And aside from a couple rare instances things are quite peaceful. We don't have high noon shootouts in the streets and there's nobody getting shot over parking places as was the dire prediction of the opposition to the carry law when it went (back) into effect a few years ago. But the bad guys keep their heads down here. I have not heard about any muggings in quite some time. I did have involvement in one bad situation some years back now but that is another story I don't care to repeat again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,662 posts, read 2,843,135 times
Reputation: 1753
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
When I lived on my little ranch in my hometown I had a three gun rack with my go to's in it. A Mossberg 930, a 1911 Government and an AR 15. Each had its specific purpose for specific situations. When a pack of marauding coyote attacked my dogs in my front yard one night I grabbed the Mossberg. When a transient came in snooping around on another nigh it was my 1911 I grabbed. The shotgun probably would have been my choice were it daytime but it was dark and I needed one hand for a flashlight. The shotgun is not light equipped. I also used the AR when I took out a snooping yote in one of my pastures during foaling time. He wasn't a solo gopher hunter. He was a pack scout. He was a tad over 200 yards out and I ended him.


I don't live on the ranch anymore, but that same three gun combo sits in the same rack where I live now. I carry the 1911 most times when I go out. There have been incidents here in places no one suspected they would happen and I go out expecting the unexpected. In the apartment I now occupy as home sweet home the shotgun would be my first choice if anyone ever tried to break in. There is no way to get into this place by force without making a LOT of noise and a stealth entry is not going to happen either. I keep the shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot so over penetration into an adjacent apartment is not a concern. The only thing I might need the AR for defensive wise around here would be the possibility of drug dealers shooting up the complex or maybe a gang drive by but this isn't a bad area of town and neither are likely.


Possible but unlikely. The AR is pretty much just a competition piece and it goes with me on desert day trips and camping. If my gal is with me I take all three because the shotgun is easy for her to handle. She's not an avid shooter so it makes sense.


Most of the guns in gang hands here are stolen from military bases and guns have been known to "disappear" from police evidence as well. Stolen military weapons are common in gang hands here and nationwide. More common than stolen civilian weapons and the bad guys don't buy their weapons at Cabelas. I worked at a large military facility here for over 20 years and I can't even begin to say how much stuff, weapons and otherwise, came up missing out there over the years. And there's a LOT of military bases across the country.


Back in the 70s this facility I worked on had 20 M14s stolen at one time. It was Marine sentries who did it and they got caught. But they had already unloaded the weapons. They claimed they had buried them in one of the magazine areas but after extensive search they were never found. One year later one rifle was recovered. In Canada.


As to carrying an AR while out and about for defensive purposes it's legal to do so but I have never seen anyone do so. LOL, I suppose if a guy just wanted to draw attention to himself that would do it. Open carry is legal here and a lot of people do so. I prefer to conceal my weapon but I have open carried before. Nobody pays it much mind. Tourists occasionally freak out and call 911 in a panic. The SO dispatch just asks them if the person they are calling about is threatening people and if the answer is no they explain it is not unusual for folks to be openly armed here. Very rarely do such calls get and actual deputy response.


And aside from a couple rare instances things are quite peaceful. We don't have high noon shootouts in the streets and there's nobody getting shot over parking places as was the dire prediction of the opposition to the carry law when it went (back) into effect a few years ago. But the bad guys keep their heads down here. I have not heard about any muggings in quite some time. I did have involvement in one bad situation some years back now but that is another story I don't care to repeat again.
TY for your post. It's interesting to hear from someone who is frank and honest about their gun ownership, without being partisan about it. I am truly interested to hear from various gun owners who own handguns and/or semi-auto rifles.

I'm wondering...how would you feel about a ban on further sales of semi-auto rifles? What about other measures like closing the gun show loophole and mandating background checks even in direct sales from owners to buyers? Is there any gun control legislation you support?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:17 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,662 posts, read 2,843,135 times
Reputation: 1753
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Why do you get to decide who lives and dies when that person didn't initiate force?
I'm responding to another poster's question and I'm not sure what you mean by your question. The question and my reply are speculation about how American civilians would fare against their own armed forces in the event of a "civilian uprising" vs. Afghans fighting American soldiers as an invading/occupying force. If you go back to the post I'm replying to, it should make more sense to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top