4 ms·

Exactly correct. I think most gun owners (or just people who have fired a fun) understand that they'd be dispatched quickly by anyone who's job is to be profic

Exactly correct. I think most gun owners (or just people who have fired a fun) understand that they'd be dispatched quickly by anyone who's job is to be proficient with firearms. There are many more cops, sheriffs and other LEOs than sovereign citizen types. It would be a short battle.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Also civil disobedience in the face of state violence tends to attract a different sort of reporting and public opinion than riots and violence, which usually - not always - generates the opposite. Violent action usually ends up as a PR gift for the status quo.
bluGill 7y ago
Many gun owners train more than the average cop or sheriff. The army could beat them in war, but it is more about logistics (which the army is a master of) than ability with a gun. One on one at the range the edge goes to the gun owner over a trained soldier (it will be close, the best of both are equal, the worst soldier is better than the worst gun owner), but wars are never one on one, and never at a range. Depending on your scenario, the army might or might not be a factor. The army is made of the people in a civil war situation many of them will defect.
gph 7y ago
Are cops in America really that proficient with guns tho? Most of them probably only spend as much time in a gun range as an average gun owner, and quite a few probably only spend whatever minimum time is required by their department. Also only a minority of them will ever fire their weapon in the line of duty, and unless they work in Baltimore or something it will probably only be once or twice in their entire career. Police involved shooting are actually quite rare, and half the time they're as likely to shoot each other along with everything else when they unload at whatever hostile they're confronting. I'm not trying to denigrate cops over this, I don't particularly want a police force that's a trained paramilitary. And certainly sovereign citizen types wouldn't win in any kind of armed insurrection at this point, but I wouldn't put it down to LEOs weapons proficiency as the reason.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Also civil disobedience in the face of state violence tends to attract a different sort of reporting and public opinion than riots and violence, which usually - not always - generates the opposite. Violent action usually ends up as a PR gift for the status quo.

bluGill 7y ago

Many gun owners train more than the average cop or sheriff. The army could beat them in war, but it is more about logistics (which the army is a master of) than ability with a gun. One on one at the range the edge goes to the gun owner over a trained soldier (it will be close, the best of both are equal, the worst soldier is better than the worst gun owner), but wars are never one on one, and never at a range. Depending on your scenario, the army might or might not be a factor. The army is made of the people in a civil war situation many of them will defect.

gph 7y ago

Are cops in America really that proficient with guns tho? Most of them probably only spend as much time in a gun range as an average gun owner, and quite a few probably only spend whatever minimum time is required by their department. Also only a minority of them will ever fire their weapon in the line of duty, and unless they work in Baltimore or something it will probably only be once or twice in their entire career. Police involved shooting are actually quite rare, and half the time they're as likely to shoot each other along with everything else when they unload at whatever hostile they're confronting. I'm not trying to denigrate cops over this, I don't particularly want a police force that's a trained paramilitary. And certainly sovereign citizen types wouldn't win in any kind of armed insurrection at this point, but I wouldn't put it down to LEOs weapons proficiency as the reason.