Nerd Pride Radio

I'm sure that I am going to get some flamage for this....

But as someone who lived through Australia's gun law changes, the only stumbling block I see - well maybe 2 - some minor details - these are easily worked out. What exactly is to be restricted and why.
The second one is a matter of values.

Hands up anyone who uses the argument that the right to bare arms is to protect themselves against governmental over-interference?
Anyone with their hands up use those hands to slap yourselves. If the government wanted to supress a section of the population using armed force - does ANY of you think that these guns would do anything more than make you a quicker target for the military forces that would be sent in? Really?

Hands up those who don't give a single tinkers toss about people being shot in mass killings? Those of you with your hands up, use them to exit the door too the left, you are sociopathic and really have no place in society.

So now we see it is a matter of which is more important to you, 'protecting yourself against your government' or making it harder for mass killers to get the best tools to do what they want.

At no point is anyone suggesting that hunters weapons are targetted by these laws - if a hunter needs a gun that spits dozens of bullets a second or even minute, then they should quit that job and take up needlepoint or something.

At no point is anyone suggesting that those on farms or ranches etc that need the tools to defend their homes and livestock from bears or other predators should be restricted from doing so.

The guns being restricted (or those that should be anyway) are those that are designed for the specific purpose of killing people, and especially those meant for killing lots of people.

I have a big problem with people claiming that they 'need' these tools. If you 'need' an assault rifle, then I think you may just be the kind of person who really shouldn't have one.

An excellent example of stupidity there.

Over a third of U.S. households have at least one gun, and there are hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership in those households, total. These people are spread out all over the country but are especially common in areas where the population is sparse. Then consider all the illegal guns and who owns those - sometimes people who have already demonstrated their willingness and ability to commit felonies. A lot of the people who have legal guns are former military.

So now that we have a sense of the resources, and the fact that they're spread out all over the place in a way that makes it impossible to direct force easily at discrete targets... Under what conditions are people apt to use their guns in that kind of crisis? It's not like there's going to be some battle in the middle of a field between an army of poorly-armed poorly-trained citizen-soldiers with rifles and handguns, and the full force of the US Military! A crisis like that in the US is going to involve a lot of people and mixed loyalties, and if it's the kind of thing that unites gun owners in wanting to do something active against an occupying force or their own government? Opposition to the US military is not the standard you should set up to evaluate how effective that's going to be.

No illusions of a full out on the field battle.

But was I in charge, when I sent the infantry in, if they met with too much resistance, I'd just pull them out and bomb the area, problem solved, all the guns, legal or illegal, wouldn't mean jack.

The idea that citizens would have to protect themselves against their government is a rather anti-societal idea in the first place. But to establish such an ineffectual defense and be so confident about it seems self defeating.

You think it's going to be a simple matter for the military to decide to bomb its own people in a situation like that? That seems like a really unrealistic scenario. Just look at what happens every time a bunch of singular nutjobs gets together with a pack of guns and tries to defend some piece of land! And that's without any other broader crisis for context.

On a slightly different note, let me add one of the scary things about this first part of the 21st century in the United States has been the realization that what seems like a very stable social order can come crumbling down very quickly under a crisis. For a lot of people this has already been obvious for a long time, or maybe they're not enjoying the benefits of a stable, orderly community where they live. But gun sales are up dramatically over the last 10 years. I think seeing the responses to things like Katrina helped establish a new sense of normal. I just assumed there could easily be some crisis related to climate change or weather or external assault, where people are going to have to fend for themselves for some period of time. I don't think I would successfully fight anyone off with a gun during that type of crisis, but a lot of people feel the opposite, and their gun purchasing says so. Mass shootings in America in the last few years have a direct causal impact on increased gun sales. People are either afraid, period, or else afraid the government is going to take their access to those guns away in response. Look at the difficulties we had providing responses to those affected by Houston flooding, and how much worse that could have gotten if just a few things were different. Look at what still happening in Puerto Rico. These examples show how thin that fabric can be. Where I live, I would imagine a lot of people are prepared to go hole up in the country for a while, surrounded by their guns and supplies to get them through a short-term crisis. The issue is not whether they're going to be able to fend off a military assault. This goes back so far in the country's psychology... I mean, can you imagine how many old duffers I myself know who will always have a weapon simply because they lived through Pearl Harbor or grew up with its memory? Effective combat of an invading force is not the goal; taking at least one of the bastards out before you go is.

i think that if the military is being sent in to control an area to the point they are going to be shot at by that population - then any commander who doesn't do that can be reasonably and soundly accused of wasting resources.

At the point the military is being sent in, I think the line that would keep them from bombing has already been crossed.

But even if you leave bombing out, the resources and training of a standing army that is so well equipped would make it really not much of a fight, far more of a massacre.

As to the collapsing of societal structures - even as I say this next bit I know it cannot currently apply. A leadership with any wisdom will work to keep it's population on side, they are both a powerful resource and a potent force against you. Leaving aside the idea that governments are put in place by the people to govern for the people etc etc etc.

All this still drives a far bigger wedge between government and population. And that in itself is bound to generate a lot of instability.
A government is PART of the population. And when either the population or the government has forgotten this, it's just a matter of time till there is a turnover.

Sadly, the recent example of Syria sits before us. A president and a military more than willing to bomb, gas, poison and starve its own people. They won,, with the help of the Russians. It was the air power specifically that gave them the edge, despite majority opposition.

Would America's guns prevent this? Not, I think, against America's military and police. It would signify the end of the world as we know it, but I wish I could say it didn't keep me up many nights, right now.

Edit:. Don't feed the troll

So, I've been married long enough to know how pointless it is to argue when you don't fundamentally have a disagreement.

Yes. You could be arguing about the ubiquity of sexual assault! Or... Palestine. Or sink strainers.

Well, arguing with facts when people want to just plug their ears and ignore them is just as pointless.

Such is life.

Also, on the subject of Syria comparisons to the united states, it's not really an honest comparison. The first reason would be that in Syria, we didn't have a government "bombing it's own people". The Alawites have, for 1000 years, not been considered equal to Sunnis in the Levant, and have been bitterly oppressed. Their ascension to power has more to do with the French Mandate after WW1, when the French preferred to recruit from Alawites and other Minorities in syria, due to uncertain loyalties among Sunni arabs. Lots of things happened, but basically, the leadership of the Syrian government and Military have been dominated by the Alawites for most of this century. This sort of dichotomy doesn't exist in the united states, as there is no clear minority that holds power over the government, internal security or the military. Bashar Assad was no more ordering the "killing of his own people" than Hitler, Stalin, the Knesset, The United States in it's indian policy, or a number of other states that have engaged or still engage in genocide. The Alawites most definitely do not consider the Sunni arabs to be "their people", but rather a violent and repressive population, that if not brutally controlled, will rise up and annihilate them. And, honestly, considering the thousand year history of the Alawites, and the treatment of the Shi'ia population in other sunni countries, that's not an unreasonable stance.

There is a real danger in glossing over differences between countries and their cultures, and instead asserting our own prejudices and biases. It tends to lead to an incomplete understanding of conflicts, which leads to bad policy decisions regarding those policies. Overemphasizing the Russian contribution to the point of ignoring the massive Iranian influence in the Syrian conflict, for example, would leave one with an incomplete picture of the centers of power in the region. Are ya'll aware that the Iranians pumped about ten times more cash into the Assad regime than the Russians? Or that Iranian or Iranian backed troops make up close to 50% of the troops fighting "for" Assad? The relationship between Syria, Iran and Russia is one that should be examined very closely, because we may see Iranian convergences with Russia in other regions, and this could have extremely negative impacts on a US hegemony.