5 ms·

You seriously think a bunch of citizens with long guns is going to be able to prevent tyranny by the greatest military force the world has ever known?

whatshisface 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising There are sparse (sparse because guns in history are rarely found among civilians) instances of people using arms to defend themselves against overwhelming state adversaries. Dictators may be cruel but they're not exactly trying to rack up police casualties.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The case you cite is illustrative of the point that it doesn't tend to work, though. > A total of 13,000 Jews died, about half of them burnt alive or suffocated. German casualties were probably less than 150.
chillwaves 7y ago
The most obnoxious part about this comment is how sure you think you are. The important questions to ask are, how does the civilian population split? How do the police, the military split? What exactly do you think civil war looks like? The idea that you have all the answers and some how guns are ineffective, at the very least in hurting those who want to oppress, is so laughable and appropriate for HN. What is going on in HK right now? You think that would happen if they were armed? No one says we win, but we make it hurt. You would rather be enslaved? The US is looking for a way out of Afghanistan and they are not the victors. Lost to some men with long guns.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > What is going on in HK right now? You think that would happen if they were armed? No, they'd be dead. Armed conflict with the PLA with no artillery or air power? (Street protest relies on some unspoken norms that police won't indiscriminately fire on and kill protestors, precisely because the protestors aren't armed. The whole point is to stop short of actual deadly urban combat. This is partly why Tianamen was so shocking; while it's difficult to know what actually happened, it's clear that army units were sent in and simply murdered a large number of people who were carrying out an unarmed protest.)
  - usrusr 7y ago
    > it's clear that army units were sent in and simply murdered a large number of people who were carrying out an unarmed protest Which is utterly puzzling because the technique of priming the slaughter with agents provocateurs amongst the protesters is neither new nor particularly difficult. Were the leaders involved just incredibly incompetent at tyranny or was there something else going on?
- usrusr 7y ago
  > How do the police, the military split? This is exactly the question that makes civilian arms stockpiles utterly irrelevant. If anything, a well-ish-equipped rebellion would make it easier for the government to avoid that split: "kill them or they will kill you" is the oldest trick in the book for keeping an army fighting on your side.
kabdib 7y ago
First, there's a deterrent effect. 300M guns (not spread out evenly, it looks like there's a power law distribution going on) is simply not ignorable. Nor is the culture that has them ignorable; these people are significantly better prepared than the usual resistance minority . . . the kind that has been know to hold out for decades against really well funded, state-sponsored opponents. Doesn't mean they're on your particular side, though :-)
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  > First, there's a deterrent effect. 300M guns (not spread out evenly, it looks like there's a power law distribution going on) is simply not ignorable. - Evacuate POI to overseas territories / nuclear aircraft territories using the Air Force - Send in the tactical nukes - ... - Profit? Mostly death Seems pretty ignorable to me.
rland 7y ago
Depends on what you mean by prevent tyranny. But there are numerous examples of fighting forces comprised of citizens with small arms and explosives making the mission long, bloody, and expensive for the US military. Nearly every military conflict after Korea has been of this variety.

whatshisface 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising There are sparse (sparse because guns in history are rarely found among civilians) instances of people using arms to defend themselves against overwhelming state adversaries. Dictators may be cruel but they're not exactly trying to rack up police casualties.

ceejayoz 7y ago
The case you cite is illustrative of the point that it doesn't tend to work, though. > A total of 13,000 Jews died, about half of them burnt alive or suffocated. German casualties were probably less than 150.

chillwaves 7y ago

The most obnoxious part about this comment is how sure you think you are. The important questions to ask are, how does the civilian population split? How do the police, the military split? What exactly do you think civil war looks like? The idea that you have all the answers and some how guns are ineffective, at the very least in hurting those who want to oppress, is so laughable and appropriate for HN. What is going on in HK right now? You think that would happen if they were armed? No one says we win, but we make it hurt. You would rather be enslaved? The US is looking for a way out of Afghanistan and they are not the victors. Lost to some men with long guns.

pjc50 7y ago
> What is going on in HK right now? You think that would happen if they were armed? No, they'd be dead. Armed conflict with the PLA with no artillery or air power? (Street protest relies on some unspoken norms that police won't indiscriminately fire on and kill protestors, precisely because the protestors aren't armed. The whole point is to stop short of actual deadly urban combat. This is partly why Tianamen was so shocking; while it's difficult to know what actually happened, it's clear that army units were sent in and simply murdered a large number of people who were carrying out an unarmed protest.)
- usrusr 7y ago
  > it's clear that army units were sent in and simply murdered a large number of people who were carrying out an unarmed protest Which is utterly puzzling because the technique of priming the slaughter with agents provocateurs amongst the protesters is neither new nor particularly difficult. Were the leaders involved just incredibly incompetent at tyranny or was there something else going on?
usrusr 7y ago
> How do the police, the military split? This is exactly the question that makes civilian arms stockpiles utterly irrelevant. If anything, a well-ish-equipped rebellion would make it easier for the government to avoid that split: "kill them or they will kill you" is the oldest trick in the book for keeping an army fighting on your side.

kabdib 7y ago

First, there's a deterrent effect. 300M guns (not spread out evenly, it looks like there's a power law distribution going on) is simply not ignorable. Nor is the culture that has them ignorable; these people are significantly better prepared than the usual resistance minority . . . the kind that has been know to hold out for decades against really well funded, state-sponsored opponents. Doesn't mean they're on your particular side, though :-)

JetSpiegel 7y ago
> First, there's a deterrent effect. 300M guns (not spread out evenly, it looks like there's a power law distribution going on) is simply not ignorable. - Evacuate POI to overseas territories / nuclear aircraft territories using the Air Force - Send in the tactical nukes - ... - Profit? Mostly death Seems pretty ignorable to me.

rland 7y ago

Depends on what you mean by prevent tyranny. But there are numerous examples of fighting forces comprised of citizens with small arms and explosives making the mission long, bloody, and expensive for the US military. Nearly every military conflict after Korea has been of this variety.