6 ms·

How old is the average American gun owner? Are they physically fit? Merely owning guns is different than possessing the physical ability and training in weapon

How old is the average American gun owner? Are they physically fit? Merely owning guns is different than possessing the physical ability and training in weapons and tactics to use them effectively, especially versus military or paramilitary forces (National Guard and Border Patrol is a much more likely initial pro-government force than police). Not only are they equipped and trained with the same weapons civilians may have, they also have automatic weapons, nightvision, grenades, armored vehicles, helicopters, tear gas, sonic weapons, fire trucks, and a lot more.

Rescis 8y ago
Keep in mind that the very modern, very well funded, and very well equipped US military has been fighting a bunch of dudes with rifles and IED's for the past several dozen years without conclusive victories or signs of the resistance slowing. That US military is also neither attacking its own citizens it has filial and friendly ties with, nor attacking people who look and talk like it. Modern armor and missiles don't accomplish much when the enemies main goal is to just live as they want to (instead of conquer territory or resources).
- nostrademons 8y ago
  To be fair, the U.S. military is very effective against the individual people they are fighting at any given moment. Kill ratios in recent conflicts are of the order of 100:1. It's just that for every insurgent you kill, you create 10 more. Unless your goal is to just depopulate the rest of the globe (something I wonder about, given recent U.S. foreign policy), you can't actually win this war without addressing the conditions that lead people to hate the U.S. in the first place.
FussyZeus 8y ago
In every instance throughout history, the $weapon wielded by the peasant has been vastly inferior to the one wielded by the noble's army, guards, etc. In fact one could argue that the peasantry has never been less outgunned that they are currently, when previous uprisings made do with sticks and rocks, and the heads of the wealthy still rolled in the end. The fact is that the select few protect themselves with rolls of the sons and daughters of the masses. Sure, plenty of them will turn their weapons on their fellow countrymen for a paycheck, but how many? And for how long? And especially once those bullets start flying, how useful is the money being paid to those guards? How long before they have all the money they could ever want and no one will sell them food? In our hyper-connected world, we lose people jobs when they crack a racist joke on twitter. How hard will it be to find the 1%'s executioners?
- code_duck 8y ago
  It’s hard to be sure exactly what scenario people are picturing when they speculate about this. If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. As far as the rest of the theorizing, we would have to be on common ground about the entire scenario before it’s worth speculating about. For example, I don’t know what food you’re talking about because in my wild fantasy scenario, all of the freeways have been destroyed and Walmarts and grocery stores are empty. Mass starvation, plague, panic, electricity is off, no communication systems work other than the military. They have seized anything useful. They have tanks etc, which helps a lot. As far as ‘who will sell them food’... you’re talking about a highly armed military force fighting a civil war? Do you think people are going shopping at Kroger with the other side or something? This isn’t the French Revolution. This is 80 years after millions of people died in gas chambers in Europe, right? The next major wars are not going to be very friendly.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    > If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. Sure, Shock and Awe was successful, but it was nothing more than a raid. The US Army did not conquer Iraq, at least on the medium term. They barely control most of the territory.
  - pm90 8y ago
    People can be extremely resilient, especially when their lives are at hand. I don't think you've thought this through. A true civil war where the US military is fighting its own citizens won't be like the Iraq war at all. There is likely to be mass defection of soldiers who are unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Massive civil disobedience where taxpayers stop paying their taxes, farmers defect to the sides that they most recognize with. Its not a scenario that I really want to think about since its so brutal. But it can happen, and the war is likely to be a prolonged battle. Not to mention, the unrest in the Motherland will let other rogue forces run amok internationally as they jostle for supremacy over each other. I can't see any of that ending well.
AtlasBarfed 8y ago
Open rebellion in the US would tank its credit rating and foreign investment, which is the only thing keeping it afloat. No sane country would lend us money to wage war on our own people/economic infrastructure. And mass insurrection would disrupt the supply chain. Nothing is warehoused these days, so the country would fall apart. Maybe I'm a pessimist. Maybe I should start digging my shelter.

Rescis 8y ago

Keep in mind that the very modern, very well funded, and very well equipped US military has been fighting a bunch of dudes with rifles and IED's for the past several dozen years without conclusive victories or signs of the resistance slowing. That US military is also neither attacking its own citizens it has filial and friendly ties with, nor attacking people who look and talk like it. Modern armor and missiles don't accomplish much when the enemies main goal is to just live as they want to (instead of conquer territory or resources).

nostrademons 8y ago
To be fair, the U.S. military is very effective against the individual people they are fighting at any given moment. Kill ratios in recent conflicts are of the order of 100:1. It's just that for every insurgent you kill, you create 10 more. Unless your goal is to just depopulate the rest of the globe (something I wonder about, given recent U.S. foreign policy), you can't actually win this war without addressing the conditions that lead people to hate the U.S. in the first place.

FussyZeus 8y ago

In every instance throughout history, the $weapon wielded by the peasant has been vastly inferior to the one wielded by the noble's army, guards, etc. In fact one could argue that the peasantry has never been less outgunned that they are currently, when previous uprisings made do with sticks and rocks, and the heads of the wealthy still rolled in the end. The fact is that the select few protect themselves with rolls of the sons and daughters of the masses. Sure, plenty of them will turn their weapons on their fellow countrymen for a paycheck, but how many? And for how long? And especially once those bullets start flying, how useful is the money being paid to those guards? How long before they have all the money they could ever want and no one will sell them food? In our hyper-connected world, we lose people jobs when they crack a racist joke on twitter. How hard will it be to find the 1%'s executioners?

code_duck 8y ago
It’s hard to be sure exactly what scenario people are picturing when they speculate about this. If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. As far as the rest of the theorizing, we would have to be on common ground about the entire scenario before it’s worth speculating about. For example, I don’t know what food you’re talking about because in my wild fantasy scenario, all of the freeways have been destroyed and Walmarts and grocery stores are empty. Mass starvation, plague, panic, electricity is off, no communication systems work other than the military. They have seized anything useful. They have tanks etc, which helps a lot. As far as ‘who will sell them food’... you’re talking about a highly armed military force fighting a civil war? Do you think people are going shopping at Kroger with the other side or something? This isn’t the French Revolution. This is 80 years after millions of people died in gas chambers in Europe, right? The next major wars are not going to be very friendly.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  > If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. Sure, Shock and Awe was successful, but it was nothing more than a raid. The US Army did not conquer Iraq, at least on the medium term. They barely control most of the territory.
- pm90 8y ago
  People can be extremely resilient, especially when their lives are at hand. I don't think you've thought this through. A true civil war where the US military is fighting its own citizens won't be like the Iraq war at all. There is likely to be mass defection of soldiers who are unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Massive civil disobedience where taxpayers stop paying their taxes, farmers defect to the sides that they most recognize with. Its not a scenario that I really want to think about since its so brutal. But it can happen, and the war is likely to be a prolonged battle. Not to mention, the unrest in the Motherland will let other rogue forces run amok internationally as they jostle for supremacy over each other. I can't see any of that ending well.

AtlasBarfed 8y ago

Open rebellion in the US would tank its credit rating and foreign investment, which is the only thing keeping it afloat. No sane country would lend us money to wage war on our own people/economic infrastructure. And mass insurrection would disrupt the supply chain. Nothing is warehoused these days, so the country would fall apart. Maybe I'm a pessimist. Maybe I should start digging my shelter.