Gun Control: Number Crunching and Endgame
 

Ok. Whenever I ( or anyone else ) posits that the reason for the 2nd Amendment and bearing arms is so that an oppressed population might overthrow their masters, I ( and others ) always hear the following:
"You'd never win! They've got machineguns and tanks and helicopters and lots of soldiers!"

This seems true, on it's face. However, I did some research and number-crunching which changes the picture quite a bit.



---------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers

Combatants: There are about 80,000,000 gunowners in the US. Let's assume a general gun-grab, "turn 'em all in" scenario. Now, let's assume that 90% of gunowners obey. This leaves 8,000,000 people in posession of weapons. Let's further assume that 10% of these remaining chose to resist with force. This leaves us with 800,000 Resistors.
There are about 1.5 Million people serving in the active Armed Forces. Let's assume that only 25% of these ( this number from a DoD study in 1998 ) are willing to fire on American citizens. This takes 75% ( roughly 1.12 Million ) effectively out of the fight, leaving us with 380,000 Military to oppose the Resistors.

So, the Resistors now outnumber the Opressors by more than 2-1.

Arms: There are about 270,000,000 guns in this country. Again, let's assume that only 1% of these remain in circulation after the 'gun grab.' That's 2.7 million firearms in the hands of the Resistors; roughly three weapons for each fighter. To put things in raw terms, this means a rifle, pistol, and shotgun for each Resistor, or any mixture thereof.

So, we now have 800,000 Resistors with 2.7 Million weapons facing 380,000 ( give or take ) Opressors, most of whom will be armed only with a single rifle ( in the Infantry aspect ). Not sounding too bad for the Good Guys so far. This is not taken into account the numbers of fighters and weapons which could be gained from the 75% of the Services which won't shoot Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology and Capability.

Tech: Our Opressor is armed with various high-tech weapons systems. Tanks, APCs, helicopters, IR, and so forth.

Tanks: If an infantryman has the sand to get close enough, tanks are very easy to immobilize or destroy. Simple Thermite will do the job, in the right spot. Also, the control to activate the Halon fire-extinguisher system on the M1A2 is on the outside. Push the button and watch the fun. There are also holes in either side of the Turret, for when the tank has to be disassembled for maintainance. Fire a burst or two into the crew compartment through the holes, and watch the fun. When "buttoned up," ( hatches closed ) tank crewmen rely on small periscopes to see what they're doing. Tankers generally 'button up' whenever they come under fire, naturally. Shoot up the periscope lenses ( an easy target for a reasonably skilled rifleman with a scoped weapon ) and they either can't see, or have to replace the 'scope. They carry spares, but only a few. Man who can't see can't fight. Tanks are also notoriously unreliable, noisy, gas-guzzling money pits. The M1A2 requires 1.45hrs of maintainance for every 1hr spent in motion.

APCs: These are tougher, but the same rule applies. Burn em, blind 'em, run 'em into obstacles. If, on TV, tanks and APC's look like they're driving around blind, it's because they usually are. APCs are more dangerous because they carry infantrymen in a rear compartment, but the same strategy generally applies. APCs are also very vulnerable to Improvised Explosive Devices, because their thin aluminum armor actually amplifies the effect of an explosion on the outside of the vehicle.

Helicopters: Once again, a terrifying idea, but easy to take down if you can stand your ground and STAY STILL. The Afghans showed us how, fighting the Soviets. Pilots look for motion when trying to detect people under cover. So, stay still and don't panic or move quickly. From here, it's a simple matter of distracting, injuring, or annoying the flight crew long enough to cause the 'copter to crash. One helicopter that I know of, in Vietnam, went down because the pilot got his left pinky finger shot off. Helicopters have to be under total control, every second, or they crash like a rock; they're -that- unstable. A deer hunter with a 30-30 could do this; the Afghans did it with 125-year-old Martini rifles.

IR/Sattilites, etc etc: Boo-freakin-hoo. They found us. Now they can A; fire a $30M cruise missle at ten guys in the woods, B: Drop a $2M JDAM on ten guys in the woods, or C: Send some poor Infantry schmucks out to kill ten guys in the woods. Which brings us tooo.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capability.

I, and twenty other people I can think of offhand, can all hit a man-sized target at 500 meters, shooting over open sights. I, and all those other people, can expect to make headshots at ranges of up to 300 yards, or 500 yards if we're using a scope. I also know a half-dozen people or so who could hit a man-size target at 1 MILE using a good scoped bolt-action rifle. And these are just the people I know personally. Think back to that 800,000 figure from before. I GAURANTEE you that of those 800,000 radicals, over half are equally capable or better. Most are using .30-calibre weapons, which can instantly incapacitate out to about 800 Meters/yards.
On the other hand, the entire Military ( except Marines ) qualify at 300 yards. A little over 25% have to try again. Now, bear in mind, this is with a round ( 5.56mm NATO ) which at anything past 250-300 Yards is the equivalent of getting hit with a .22LR. Might be fatal if it got you through the eye or temple. Otherwise, you might eventually die ( in a few days/hours ) but for right now, you're mostly just pissed off. So, a substandard shooter with a substandard cartridge. Doesn't look too good for the Bad Guys.

So, we've got 350,000 guys who can't hit a 20x40 target at 300, shooting an anemic round, facing 800,000 guys who can hit a 20x40 at 600, firing a round with 3x+ the killing power. Looks pretty good for the Good Guys.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endgame.

Which brings us down to this.
The Oppressor would, most likely, have to bring in Foreign help, to plug up the manpower holes if nothing else. Now, all of a sudden, there are Chinese/German/French/take your pick UN troops marching down Main St, USA. That 800,000-man army just got a LOT bigger. Americans will take almost anything from other Americans, but let some blue-helmet march down their street, and they'll get MAD. Now, say, there's 2,000,000 Resistors facing 1,500,000 Opressors, who are now made up mostly of poorly-trained Conscripts who hate the food, don't speak the language, are poorly supplied ( because they all carry different weapons, ammunition, and equipment, making logistics a nightmare ) who can't shoot., and who's technology is obsolete. Still looking pretty good for the Good Guys.

Here's the bottom line, folks. The Good Guys win. On numbers, they win. On ability, they win. On time, they win. The only questions now are:
1: When do they win, and
2:How quickly do they win?

I don't know. I'm not a soothsayer. But we still win.

For further reading and sources, see;
"Boston's Gun Bible" by Boston T. Party, available from Javalin Press

(Removed the pic read tilted rules thought maybe it was better if I removed it)

I think you assume way too much in those numbers. I think you have watched way too much tv.

Ah but what about organization? Military units are trained to work as a team, have a command structure, fight with a strategy and tactical goals. A bunch of 'citizens' with guns, particularly the independent-minded (that's me being polite) folks who would resist a crackdown, are not very open to being organized.

The whole thing would devolve into an ugly guerrilla war, rather like Iraq at the moment.

You are sadly over-confidant and have grossly mistaken the capabilities and resolve of the average gun owner.

Your figure of 2,000,000 is not an army, it's a largely untrained group of widely dispersed people with virtually no means of supply, communications, or organazation.

Unless you have some secret means to instantly create a trained force from that 2,000,000 gun owners, you're blowing smoke and spinning mirrors to create illusion.

You'd be amazed how many people are already organized, trained, and committed on this issue. Former LEO, former Military, and those trained by them.
Also, you can see what even disorganized, poorly trained, horribly supplied resistance can do, just by looking at Iraq right now, or Afghanistan circa 1985. As for underestimating the capabilities of the average gunowning citizen, unless you're also a member of the gun community ( which your response tells me you're probably not ) I'm the one speaking with backup here. LEOs and Military regularly get their asses handed to them at IPPA, IDPA, and various other competitions every year; the only LEO to ever win the IDPA Nat'l Champion was over ten years ago, and the feat's never been repeated.
And as I said, we're dealing with the hard-core 1% here, at least in the beginning. And I can tell you from repeated experiance, these people can shoot as I said.

Whataver the details - admittedly fascinating and illuminating as they are (thanks) - it would be a bloody fight rather than a steamroller ride, wouldn't it?

Oh yeah. That's those two questions at the bottom.

While I disagree with a lot of your assumptions it's an interesting discussion.

Guerilla tactics require only a fraction of the 800,000 you cite to engage even the whole of our military.

I don't think that 90% of the population would hand over their guns. I think if things got bad enough that the government tried this, then stuff would start right there. I also don't see American troops engaging in widespread combat against their own people (civil war notwithstanding). Also, as far as high technology, it takes a lot of manpower to keep a jet in the air. those people are going to leave the army too.

LOL, I live in Texas... I dont know a single person that would hand over the guns.

Maybe in the more urban areas of Dallas there would be a few, but most of the people who would be willing to hand over guns dont even own any.

Would there be an all out war? No

Would it be political suicide for the politicians that voted yes? Absolutely

Actually, requiring handing over guns would lead to the purchase of more guns. It happens every time a "ban" goes into place. MD had a huge jump in sales right before more background checks and waiting periods went into effect.

I can see these guys firing with open sights hitting bullseyes at 500 yards, but can they do it at night, after being up for 48 hours, under an artillery barrage? Idon'tthinkso.

Endgame? U.S. Armed Forces 1 Traitors 0

Interesting phrasing there, as I can only assume that in a situation in which the US government were to confiscate every last weapon from every last person in the country, it would most likely be them who were committing the evil act, and the "traitors" would be the true patriots who didn't want their country invaded by a few evil people up top.

Basic definition - You raise arms against your country, you are a traitor. Very simple. George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers were traitors to the crown - these gunmen would be traitors to the US, to the flag. Sure, there may be a hypothetical situation where raising arms against your government puts you in the right, but you'd still be a traitor.

But, back to subject, I don't think true patriots would or should be discussing the tactics of disabling American tanks and APCs or taking out helicopters. It's pretty disturbing if you ask me.

Does anyone really believe that the men and women of the armed forces would go into a town and attempt to forcibly disarm them? As a retired AF member, most of my friends are either active duty or retired and have lots of guns. They believe in ol #2 and fight to preserve it.

I believe that they would disobey the orders of the officers appointed over them.

I also believe that people would hide their weapons, then seek to overthrow the law before taking to the streets and open violence. If that did not work, then selective targets might get targeted and new people appointed. No matter what, it would get ugly, before a vote anyway.

If people want to get together and have a gun-free zone, then create one. It doesn't need to be the whole country. In some areas, guns are still viable working tools and a matter of safety. Safety not from other humans, but from animals.

I will simply say that if things get that bad in the US, then it could be argued that the traitors are the ones in office.

As to the other issue, why talk about how to defeat tanks and APCs disturbs you is beyond me.

Yeah... but our country IS our Constitution. Our Constitution allows for the owning of guns. Therefor if our government outlaws something specifically mensioned by the constitution the government loses its base of power.

Just like a General is in command of his given division. If he marches his army into a foreign country without orders he has violated his terms of governance thus his command gets taken away.

The same would happen if the government tries to outlaw guns, they would have no base of power because they specifically violated the piece of paper that gave the government power.

On a side note, the armed forces pledge to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, not the president, not congress... but the constitution. They would not turn on civilians but would simply not follow orders given to a now powerless leader.

I think someone didn't appreciate Asuka's image linking. :)

Asuka, if you dont understand please dont post. The Politics board is a serious place and this is a serious post that deserves serious answers.

I dont think this event is possible ever in the US, the people just have too much input for this to happen but regardless I agree with your opinons on gun control. Unless somehow our democratic process is messed with, very unlikely.

In Germany (Holocaust), the Soviet Union (Anti-Communists), Turkey (Armenian Genocide), China (Anti-Communists), Cambodia (Educated Persons). Legislature was passed and enforced to remove fire arms from public hands soon after mass killings occured. Just something i felt compelled to add.

Look at the picture's source URL. There's no mistake here.The first statement is a much clearer way of delivering myintended message, and I also agree with the second statement.

Whats wrong with the URL?I just google searched for a pic. Oh removed the pic too. I don't want any trolling.


I do understand the post. The bunny pic was just to reinforce my point that I didn't think the numbers he posted were right. The second part of the post was serious. I stated I beleive there was too much assumption in the post. When I read it I find in my own opinion that it is unlikely that it will happen. Yes I am aware that in those cases the people were disarmed before they were attacked.

I thought a little more on this and if guns were banned. I dont think a civil war would happen but I would imagine that a huge criminal element will be introduced in America like the America during the prohibition.

Alright - the only possible scenario in which a gun-confiscation law would be legal would be if it was a Constitutional Amendment - hence, the traitor label. Please note that I don't agree with such a thing, but you all were having trouble with my logic.

I don't know why the other thing bothers me. Just something about an ex-military guy broadcasting the specific weaknesses in American tanks and choppers for all to see bugs me. *shrugs*

It's not like the weaknesses to these weapons is secret knowledge. We, the Russians, Brits, Germans, French, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghanis, etc etc etc have been passing the hard earned knowledge along since the onset of these weapons. It's not "specific weaknesses in American" equipment, but the equipment around the world.

Now if he were to say the location of the exhaust system on the individual tank and the amout of plating and defensive systems around it then maybe, but standing your ground and getting in close has been used since the very first tanks rolled accross Europe.

Substitute in Wisconsin for Texas and I agree 100%.

Meanwhile, hunting supports multi-million (possibly billion) dollar industries. Repealing all guns would basically leave thousands out of jobs in an already struggling economy, and the lack of seasonal income will basically kill at least 100 towns.

This would be guarenteed political suicide.

Not to mention considering it would have to be a consitutional amendment, it would never get enough states to pass.

First, I'm not military, never have been. Just your average, everyday Patriot and ( Per USC Title 10, Sec. 311 ) member of the Unorganized Militia. You might be shocked to discover that, in all likelihood, you are as well.
I would also like to correct those members who seem to think these are numbers I've pulled out of my nether regions. The numbers of weapons and owners thereof is available through the Beureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the numbers of A-D Military from the Guiness Book of Records. The 25% of Military who would fire on American Citizens is from a DoD study conducted at Camp Pendleton, CA in August of 1998.

The numbers I quoted are: 1% of all ( known, legal ) gunowners retaining 1% of all ( known, legal ) firearms in current circulation. I don't think any Gov-run operation could nab even close to 99% of gunowners and 99% of guns; I'm giving the BATFEebs the benefit of the doubt here.

As for ability: I'm not talking about hitting bullzeyes at 600 yards. I'm talking about the moving pop-up targets employed at the formerly Riverside Gun Club ( now Revolutionary War Veteran's Association ) in Ramsuer, NC. You can read about this organization, their training, and their matches in The Shotgun News, in "Fred's" column. Should be about halfway back.
Artillary: What makes you think a bunch of ( basically ) light infantry is going to sit still for a 48-hour artillary barrage? We're crazy, not stupid.
Night-shooting: That's what starlight scopes, illuminated reticles, tritium, and NVGs are for. Plenty of those floating around in Cicillian hands, too...

Alright. Point taken. Enjoy your plotting.

ARGH!

This is what drives me crazy, the inability to understand that NO ONE is PLOTTING!

We simply understand that our government's power derives from the PEOPLE and that if the government abuses that power, then WE THE PEOPLE must have the means to take back that power.

So long as those in power remember that they are servants of THE PEOPLE and not the other way around, there won't be any problems.

Have I really said anything you disagree with??

I think people over estimate technology. Also, simply on account of the level of bloodshed that would be had if the government tried something like that, I think they'd be much more likely to spend 50+ years tweaking the public education system and media to render the population easily dealt with via covert methods as opposed to overt forceful methods.

I think they can do it, especially if there's an immediate zerg rush in the area of D.C.

Also, isn't the military overwhelmingly conservative? Number two is a big one with conservatives, I think those numbers may be underestimating the amount of soldiers that would join the "rebels."

As a theoretical excercise your numbers are interesting, but the reality of the situation is totally unfathomable. Individual pockets of resistance would be forced to go against well-organized units, and on a scenario-by-scenario basis they would most likely be outnumbered.

That said, resistance fighters have the advantage of positioning. A resistance movement would be most active within the cities; urban combat is ideally suited towards guerilla actions. Getting the guns there would be somewhat more difficult, since a great number of your freedom fighters are located in rural areas.

Interesting excercise. I know I'd be keeping my guns.

great analogy. i loved it.


as to the premise in the originating post, it's definitely thought-provoking, regardless of how plausible or not it may be. i seriously doubt that our country will ever come to the point that you discuss, but if it does i garuntee you there will be dire consequenses against anyone who tries it. i appreciate the time you've put in to this thread.. to an open mind, it relays alot of very interesting possibilities.

This would definitely be the worst case scenario. I think that Xell101 is right in his thinking that if any form of disarmament was to happen, it would be on a long term basis. But if forceful actions were taken, there would be many more citizens keeping their firearms and many soldiers abandoning the military to join the "rebels".
I know I would be keeping my guns and boxes of ammo.

First off, I have never been in the military, so I'm not some ex-military guy doing anything.

Second, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if you can disrupt the track on any track driven vehicle, be it tank or bulldozer then it's not going to go anywere.

Another thing I just thought of regarding organization;
Too much organization is/can be a bad thing. A large, widely dispersed group is a lot more easily infiltrated and destroyed than is a smaller one. A large group also provides a more inviting physical target. 25 guys in the woods is hardly worth dropping several million dollars worth of missle on; 250 guys, however, looks a lot more appealing. People within a small group know each other, infiltration is extremely difficult at best.

You initial assuption of a war "militia vs. Army" is, in my opinion completly unrealistic.
If there will be a opressive regime that needs to been overthrown will will have more likely been
"loyal part of the army & loyal part of the militia vs. rebel army & rebel militia"
and that will result in a massiv carnage. I'm afraid that a lot the gun owners will act "uncivilised" in war since they are lacking training and discipline. It will be a whoule nation in war, that would destroy the USA.