I got robbed at gunpoint today....

[smitty3268]

That kind of stuff doesn't fly in todays age. The Geneva documents set precedence that we -have- to abide by. Bombing a city to rubble isnt an option at all.

So you think the US military is going to start killing it's own civilian population, but will give up and lose because of foreigners and the Geneva Conventions?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

The entire premise is ridiculous - but if you've accepted that, then it's hard to believe something as silly as international opinion is going to matter. That opinion would already be about as low as possible, after a military force started killing it's own population in a democratically elected country. At that point, you might as well play to win, because things aren't going to get any better. Look at places like Syria - they aren't exactly concerned with the Geneva conventions. They're mostly only concerned that outsiders don't come in and help the rebels.

[duby229]

That kind of stuff doesn't fly in todays age. The Geneva documents set precedence that we -have- to abide by. Bombing a city to rubble isnt an option at all.

[smitty3268]

I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised by how difficult urban combat really is. What you need for urban settings are snipers. Lot's and lots of well placed snipers. Any military leader worth his salt will know this.

Urban combat is only difficult if you are trying to protect civilians or the existing infrastructure. If you are free to bomb the city into the stone age, it's really easy. Otherwise, sure, the easiest solution is to blockade it and wait until the people inside starve and have to come out.

[duby229]

Also, I'm pretty sure 1 soldier in a tank or F22 could kill 310 armed civilians. Really really easily.

I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised by how difficult urban combat really is. What you need for urban settings are snipers. Lot's and lots of well placed snipers. Any military leader worth his salt will know this.

[smitty3268]

But you forget a few things: The distribution across the US isn't flat. The southeast, for instance, is far more heavily armed, so if you distributed the forces properly, you can get the proper amount of soldiers to armed civilians.

You also forget to factor in state/local police forces, which would likely side with the government.

Also, I'm pretty sure 1 soldier in a tank or F22 could kill 310 armed civilians. Really really easily.

[duby229]

If you really think that giving everyone a gun will decrease gun violence, then I submit we should give every country nukes, for the same exact reason, since no one would risk retaliation.

And if you say "It only takes one crazy", then yeah, you made my point. You don't want crazys having weapons, because they will use them, no matter the risk of retaliation.

I think the biggest difference here between nukes and guns is ismple... If I wanted to get a fully automatic assualt rifle all I have to do is take a walk down to Tod Lane and knock on "Ricky's" door and he'll show me his collection and and I can pay cash and walk out with what I bought today. Maybe it isn't quite that simple, I suppose I'd have to get to know Ricky enough that he would trust selling to me, but the point still remains.

Illegal guns are easy to come by. They always will be regardless of how progressive gun laws become. Regulating gun ownership is only preventing legal gun ownership and making the black market stronger.

[gamerk2]

If you really think that giving everyone a gun will decrease gun violence, then I submit we should give every country nukes, for the same exact reason, since no one would risk retaliation.

And if you say "It only takes one crazy", then yeah, you made my point. You don't want crazys having weapons, because they will use them, no matter the risk of retaliation.

[gamerk2]

1. For ever US Solder, and Federal Government Official there is 310 armed civilians.

But you forget a few things: The distribution across the US isn't flat. The southeast, for instance, is far more heavily armed, so if you distributed the forces properly, you can get the proper amount of soldiers to armed civilians.

You also forget to factor in state/local police forces, which would likely side with the government.

I also note the government reflects the people, since the people are ultimately responsible for forming the government. So if a disarmament did take place, it's only because its what the majority of the population wants.

[corebob]

Guns don't kill people*. Bullets kill people. So let guns stay legal and only ban the ammunition. Problem solved.

* Unless you throw them pretty hard.

This is not correct. Its the combination of a person and a gun that kill people, at least until we got drones

[zester]

The 14 Trident II SSBNs together carry approximately fifty percent of the total US active inventory of strategic thermonuclear warheads. Those aren't Navy killers those are Nation killers. Could you even imagine being hit with 336 Nukes!!!!!