yesmanGun manufacturers are having a great year.
Yeah you’re right, instead I should trust that the police will use restraint, arrive instantly, and do the right thing 🤡
A dog is much better protection than a gun.
Dogs get shot.
Life isn’t a video game.
Ask a real world security professional and they’ll tell you to get a dog.
A gun salesman will tell you that if you buy a gun you automatically become Annie Oakley
LexamI think we’re talking two different things. I’m not saying to buy a giant handgun and wait for robbers to come into your house so you can blast them away.
I’ve known people who fantasize about that. They are gross.
What I’m saying is that the police in the United States have a history of shooting dogs, so they do absolutely nothing for you anti-fascist security. They would absolutely help against theft and robbery because most robbers want to be quick and quiet. Police don’t care.
AzzuI have a dog. I’m also surrounded by fascists in the deep south. I’m keeping guns because I’d rather live than die for some abstract moral point you’re trying to make about how we should live in a fantasy land where people in fascists states don’t need guns.
Ask a real world security professional and they’ll tell you to get a dog.
I am a (former) real world security professional.
And I’ll say that a gun is much easier to carry around with you than a dog.
Good boy!
What exactly do you think we’re arming to defend against? Roving bands of goblins? Crackheads? Do you even read the news? Do you understand politics at all and the consequences? Do you KNOW that nations have fallen to authoritarians in the past, or does that seem like more “nothing ever happens” daydreaming and worldbuilding?
Look up MOVE.
Philadelphia police bombed a house in the middle of the city.
If it comes to an armed conflict, I really doubt that the folks who couldn’t get Bernie nominated are going to win a firefight.
Stop living in videogame land.
Stop living in videogame land.
If that’s how you think this works, you’re the one with the vision of some video game firefight. We are arming up as a message, not because we think we will win against a military force. But so that if electoral politics fails, we have power to back up our resistance. “Door-to-door meat grinder” is the worst five words any military leader wants to hear and we need to make that the standard our political currency is built on.
The whole fucking reason that the hardline conservatives in the US have taken so goddamn much ground and got their clown messiah elected is exactly because they understand we don’t live in a star-trek utopia and have embraced POWER to back up their demands, they carry the flag and own guns and declare their willingness to fight for the things they want.
What are YOU doing? Asking for civil discourse? What era do you think we’re entering? Get your head out of your ass and understand that people braver than you are willing to fight for the same thing you want, so you get to decide what role you play in getting there.
Nothing your wrote makes me think you could handle an actual gunfight.
that is a stupid reply, I’m not engaging anymore and won’t see another brain-dead reply. I hope you never have to worry about this and would kindly prefer you keep your stupid-hole closed when adults are talking about these matters.
Nothing you wrote makes me think you could handle a face to face discussion
So what’s your plan? Just give in?
“I think we should run into the cannon’s mouth and choke the enemy with our dead.”
“That sounds like an awful plan.”
“So what’s your plan, just give in??”
I didn’t say that. I’m just a passerby reading your conversation and noticing that you haven’t put any ideas forward.
I’m just a passerby reading your comment.
You’re obviously following the issue.
What’s your plan?
To keep living in Canada and keep my gun license up to date in case your country’s bullshit leaks all the way over.
Not my first choice. I never wanted a gun. Now what are your ideas?
Frist step is to call out any idiot who thinks that life is a video game and they can just buy a gun and instantly overthrow the 0.01%
I’ll just go ahead and ignore your not-so-clever-or-subtle insults and deflection. What’s after that? What are you doing to help?
Let’s hear some ideas, because trust me, no one wants it to come to violence, but the other side has already murdered people. So what’s the plan?
We’re still on Step One.
Any ideas how to help us? Because you’re wrong, a lot of people think violence is the only thing that will work
Well, I’ve abandoned spending money on anything American.
I don’t know what else I could do, as a working class Canadian, so I’ve taken training and purchased a firearm as a last resort in preparation for the worst.
Aren’t there supposed to be checks and balances? The biggest thing would be to vote in your primaries and the election, I guess. Currently, contact your elected officials and ask them why the fuck they’re letting all this happen. Do everything you can through the proper channels before resorting to violence.
But if they won’t play by the rules and come for you, then I don’t think you need to play by the rules either. Telling people they’re wrong for preparing for the worst isn’t helpful.
Telling people they’re wrong for preparing for the worst isn’t helpful.
“There’s a chance of an earthquake. You should store tons of unstable explosives in your basement. That’s the best way to prepare!”
Well I hope you enjoy your time in the gulag because I’d rather be fucking dead.
Let’s hear some ideas, because trust me, no one wants it to come to violence,
Your words.
So, no one wants it to come to violence, but violence is inevitable because you say so?
I’m safer facing the enemy alone, than in a mob of untrained wanna-be Annie Oakleys
Yes yes you’ve made it clear that you’re a coward. Have a good one.
You’re the one who ran away to Canada while insisting other people buy guns to fight.
You are unintentionally hilarious, which is the best kind of hilarious.
Elaborate.
NOT_RICKI know that the second a gun is brought into a house the members of the household are significantly more likely to be shot. I believe it’s because of the number of gun related suicides as well as the risk of a negligent discharge.
This is true, but in a vacuum in a life-threatening situation a gun is better than a dog for defending yourself. And also does not require you to intentionally put an innocent creature in harm’s way. And also does not require nearly as much upkeep as a dog.
But you are correct, the presence of a gun does statically increase your risk of being shot. And that is something worth considering.
A claw hammer would be a better option than a gun. Why does everyone assume that a gun would be the best thing to defend your home with.
Think to yourself for two seconds why a gun would be better for self-defense than a hammer.
What advantage does a hammer have over a gun in a moment of self-defense?
I can grab it at a moments notice as it can safely be left out, you don’t have to load it or aim it so using it is fast and simple. If its my home they’re invading I know where to hide. I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure.
Unlike you, I actually train with my gun so we have very different concerns when under pressure. Mine relate more to not getting killed to make some kind of moral stand avoid how guns are bad in all contexts.
Brother I aint said shit about how I feel about gun ownership, you read into that. I’m just pointing out that I really do think a claw hammer is just an overall more utilitarian self defense weapon.
Okay fair enough. I would agree it’s definitely better than something unwieldy like an AR, but personally I’d rather have a handgun than a hammer. If someone’s breaking into my house and actively snooping around such that simply hiding and waiting for them to leave isn’t going to keep me safe, then there’s an above normal (but probably not strictly likely) chance that they’re on some kind of stimulant. A hammer may or may not put them down. A few hollow points tearing through their chest cavity probably will. Hammer definitely isn’t bad, but I personally think the odds are stronger with a handgun.
The only advantage I agree with is the ability to leave a hammer out versus a gun, and that’s only in cases of having small children at home. If your gun is for self-defense, it would make more sense to keep it loaded and easily accessible.
I have to say it’s a very strange stance to prefer to defend yourself within arm’s reach of an assailant versus at a distance. I think you’re also giving yourself a lot of credit when you say you’d be more confident swinging a hammer with enough accuracy and strength to incapacitate someone while panicking. Better hope you get them in one swing.
Maybe its just because I’ve been in a lot of dog fights, but if someone close to you swings something heavy, most people would drop the gun to try stopping it. But it is sooo situational.
but if someone close to you swings something heavy, i think most people would drop the gun to try stopping it
Pro tip: If you have a gun, it’s also something heavy you can swing at people, if you for some reason think that’s a superior tactic.
it can safely be left out
Honestly, I wouldn’t leave hammers lying around where kids could get to them any more than guns. The hammer will be less deadly, sure, but a dumb kid will still cause a lot of damage with it.
you don’t have to load it
True
or aim it
False, lol. You out there protecting yourself with unaimed hammer swings?
I trust my ability to swing and hit someone in a panic far more than I do my ability to handle a gun under the same pressure.
Skill issue. Requires training time.
Unless you’re fighting nails, a claw hammer is not not the best thing to defend yourself with in any situation.
LibertyLizardGood thing Alex Pretti was armed. Oh wait.
Yeah the dog thing is silly too.
An organized and effective political movement is what will protect us, not weapons.
An organized and effective political movement with weapons.
I don’t see how the weapons will be useful honestly. Iran has a very well armed military and they’re almost totally powerless before the US military. Military conflict is perhaps the singular thing fascists are best at. I’d rather attack my enemies where they are weak instead of where they are strong.
Iran has a very well armed military and they’re almost totally powerless before the US military.
We will see, we will see.
Tell it to Afghanistan.
Foreign adventures are different. The US military won’t get bored and go home inside the US the way they do elsewhere.
The US military won’t get bored and go home inside the US the way they do elsewhere.
No, they won’t. But they also have unique vulnerabilities on the home front that they didn’t face in Afghanistan.
-
All domestic supply lines now run through potentially hostile territory. Deliveries of food, fuel, and other supplies could become difficult, vulnerable to ambush and attack. Water, natural gas, and electrical lines servicing bases may also be attacked and disabled.
-
Most domestic US bases are not well fortified. They’re generally surrounded only by a fence. A sturdy fence designed to prevent climbing and withstand being hit by a truck, but not bulletproof. And a lot of bases have a lot of important assets within rifle range of the fence. Hit-and-run pot shots taken from outside the fence at expensive and important assets inside the fence are going to become a real problem. Eventually, they’d protect important things with more bulletproof barriers, but that would take significant time, and the troops doing that work would be vulnerable in the meantime. Until those barriers go up, things like aircraft, fuel tanks, and radar systems are going to sporadically end up with random bullet holes in them.
-
A lot of federal facilities that aren’t military bases are barely protected at all. From courthouses to IRS offices to military recruitment offices, they have a lot of facilities that would be very vulnerable to attack, with a few lightly armed guards at most. For each of those, they’ll have to choose between abandoning it or spending significant time and resources in fortifying it.
-
A large portion of US servicemembers live off-base, where they would be vulnerable to attack at home or while commuting to the base. Some bases could temporarily house all their troops on-base, but that’s probably going to mean putting them most of them up in tents and other temporary housing. Bad for morale. Even worse for morale is that there certainly isn’t going to be space for all their families and pets and possessions, which will still be vulnerable to attack off base.
-
Defection and desertion will be much larger issues than they ever were in Afghanistan. Pretty much no US soldiers are going to find the idea of leaving the US to join the Taliban to be appealing. But many US soldiers will have mixed feelings about fighting their own countrymen and neighbors, and many may be more sympathetic to the insurgents than to their own command. Some individuals and even some entire units might defect to the other side. Many more will go AWOL and just refuse to fight … especially if they feel like they need to stay home to protect their own families.
-
Spies and saboteurs will also be much larger issues than in Afghanistan. Some of those same soldiers considering defection or desertion might instead choose to stay in their position and aid the insurgency there. A single spy can cause massive damage if he notifies insurgents of troop movements and vulnerabilities. A single saboteur in, say, aircraft avionics maintenance could cause massive damage and bring down several aircraft before being caught. And they will likely find many spies and saboteurs among their ranks in a domestic civil war. Since these spies have the same exact same language and culture, they’ll be practically impossible to detect until it’s too late. The problem will only become worse if recruitment continues through the war, as it will be almost impossible to avoid recruiting and enlisting new insurgents into their ranks. If they instead pause recruitment during the war, then they’re capping their manpower and every soldier lost is irreplaceable.
-
As the war drags on, troop morale will become a huge issue (which will feed into worsening the previous two issues). In our previous wars in the Middle East, soldiers would deploy for a limited time, then return to safety in the US (or other overseas bases) where they could rest and train. Usually 6 months deployed, 6 months at home, though deployments could sometimes be longer. In a domestic insurgency, though, none of this could happen. There’s no safe home base to return to. It’s basically like a permanent deployment, with no end in sight. Being confined to base for their own safety, perhaps having supply shortages due to convoys being attacked, etc will all make troop morale even worse. It will also make recruitment much more difficult.
I think all of that is more than enough to make up for the ‘won’t get bored and go home’ factor.
RaoulDuke