How it looks to the UK

Gun crime statistics by US state

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

 

Republican pushes for new gun law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html

 

The point being that once the insurgents have already made a few bombs, blown up or shot local law enforcement and federal agents, the military members that have sworn to defend against enemies domestic and foreign aren't automatically going to defect to the insurgents side.

You are forgetting that not everybody will want to be insurgents even if they sympathize, and not everybody will sympathize. Even during the revolutionary war, Washington had trouble filling his army's ranks with enough angry farmers, and that was a war for independence.

EDIT: I missed a part.
You bring up the point of a large part of the army being support staff.
Problem is... the insurgency will have NO support staff. They'll have to scavenge for food, they'll have little to no access to medical aid (ask the Iraqi insurgents where they can go if they get shot), they'll have to scavenge or loot for ammunition and resupply (and will realize that ammunition is not interchangeable in most cases), they'll have little to no ability to coordinate the war effort over multiple areas, no leadership staff etc. The list goes on and on and on.

If all out civil war breaks out, I imagine a lot of things will end up on a "do not sell" list pretty quickly, so gear will be in short supply.

You are aware that the standard M16 and M4 are semi-automatic weapons, correct?

I find it amusing that you discount suppressive fire so quickly. The entire point of infantry combat since the beginning of the 20th century has been to suppress the enemy, so you can maneuver to eliminate them with rifle fire, grenades or whatnot. The insurgents would capture support weapons, and may have a small number available though supply conditions would be an issue, but fighting without them makes fundamental infantry combat extremely hazardous.

Keep in mind that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are infinitely better equipped (RPK's, RPG's etc) and we kill them by the dozen.

What is a guy used to shooting deer going to do, when a SAW is pinning down his group, while someone else is dumping grenades into the hole you are hiding in?

All coalition forces have made extensive use of air power and combat vehicles in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea that a tank or Stryker isn't useful in urban combat, particularly against an enemy with little access to cheap soviet antitank weapons, is curious to me.
Hell, even the danish government have a platoon of Leopards in Afghanistan.


I have to head to work so I can't reply in detail until tonight unfortunately, but the point is, insurgencies don't win a war, unless they have foreign backing or can wage a regular war.

Who would be the foreign backer of a US insurgency? China? Iran?

This is a different topic. Preventing an insurgency is pretty much impossible. The British would have been all over that otherwise.
I was talking about winning it.

Irregular warfare can drag out a conflict, but without regular military force (or becoming regular military force) it can never win it.


And at the risk of going into speculation: If half the country can't be bothered to vote on a regular basis, I don't think there's many that genuinely want to die overthrowing a government, even if we received a government that required it. The age of revolutions is over. People would rather sit on facebook and bitch, before going to their minimum wage job.

 

Thought this was appropriate due to the reason why this thread was put up. Here is an article written in regards to how Loughner was able to purchase his gun.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110111/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_the_gun

 

Should he have been able to purchase that gun, El Casanova? How about the 30 shot clip?

 

No, but there are factors in this type of matter which are always brought out in the open thanks to a tragedy occurring.

There was nothing in his personal history which prevented him from buying the gun under federal rules.

Because his criminal charges were dismissed, he had none on his record. Because the file on him from the Army is confidential, that information was not acquired. And the information about Pima Community College banning him from the campus due to him being psychologically unstable to the point that he would cause harm to other students and faculty was never acquired either.

So if all those factors would have been acquired, I am quite sure he would have never been able to have been able to purchase that weapon. But due to the cracks in the system, Loughner was able to purchase the weapon.

 

Then there is something wrong isn't there?

 

Did I say there was not something wrong with this?

 

How are those HIPAA laws working out now.

 

None of those things mentioned were covered by HIPAA.

Now if he would have gone to a psychologist then that would have been covered by HIPAA. But he never did go see a shrink as the Pima Community College asked his parents to do so, then nothing is covered by HIPAA.

But to make this more interesting. What do you think what covered by HIPAA law?

 

El Casanova .....

... you could talk all day and never say anything.

 

In other words, I do think that something was wrong.

So instead of asking questions which you already know the answer to. How about you just cut the bullshit and get to the point. Because I have already lost all of my patience with you and your useless rambling.

Better yet, instead of asking questions about the article. How about reading the article yourself, getting the information and having an intellectual conversation.

 

I stated HIPAA because I couldn't think of another one, the Privacy Act is to better describe, they are all intertwined and do the same thing. I made a mistake and assumed that they did require him to seek a mental evaluation,,,,,my bad.

 

Listen Ace ........

.......... what I don't think most these stupid fuckers get is the difference between the right to own a gun and the fuckers that got no business getting close to one. Now you solve that one for me. And by morning to. I'm liable to be not talking again after that.

 

After reading most of what I submitted, I have come to the 3 conclusions;

1) There are to many bureaucrats involved in chasing the required information through federal, state, and local jurisdictions. There's alot of red tape involved for the honest gun owner to acquire a weapon, legally.

2)The federal, state and local governments dictate who can legally own a gun of their choice.

3) The black market dictates how much the gun will cost those that can not own a gun legally

The ball was dropped by many in this situation, from the schools to the law. Not excluding his parents and his 'friends' in this particular situation. He lived at home.
​

 

tools

I did armed security work for 10 years and the one thing i found out is a gun is a tool just like a screw driver. I could stab you with a screw driver but nobody says BAN screw drivers. Those of you that want guns banned are scared because you don't understand guns . There are always idiots out there that want what you got so either give it to them or stand there with a 12 gauge and say go away and leave me alone or I'll blow your fucking head off. Unless they are a dumbfuck nigger they will go AWAY.

 

tools

I forgot one thing ( WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS) I would rather have 10,000 guns and never NEED one rather than NEED one desperately and not have one!!!! One last thing for those of you that have a gun in the top of a closet and the bullets somewhere else are you going to say- MR. home invader wait while i get my gun,find my bullets and load them before you do anything. wise up.

 

I have said before we need to find out where the the system failed, and that is what happened it failed.

Why did the school notify anyone else besides the parents of his actions in school?? The other students were clearly afraid of him.

Why did the parents do something when they received the noticed and saw the way he was acting??

I had heard that the sheriff was involved a few times so why did he not do anything??

You could clearly see he is nuts.

There were many things that failed here so why not find out why. To buy a gun you have to go through a background check, they said he was OK to go.
Why did they not know he was nuts?? Who did not tell them??

I feel the failure started with the parents and the school. If he was acting nuts in school and they threw him out why did they not notify the authority's?? i do not remmeber but was it not the ACLU that fought and won that you cannot report someone like this because he has the right to privacy??

Lets find out why and how the system failed, then go from there and fix the system. People like him should NEVER be allowed to be even near a gun.

 

How about this?

Nearly 50 Percent Of Mental Health Services Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/pima-county-mental-health-services_n_807522.html

 

On the contrary...I think it's you who is afraid, somewhere deep down where you don't want to talk about it. That's what drives your racism.