Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Draco-Onis]

I live with non city slickers. They are plenty able.
In 2018, the US recruited over 170,000 for active duty service. A good bit of the issue in recruitment (besides the previously low unemployment) is related to the continued urbanization (and the concurrent liberalization) of the country. Liberal cities don't produce many recruits. For instance, conservative Colorado Springs produced 6.6X more recruits per capita than Boulder, a very liberal city 100 miles north. Almost all of the top 500 counties in recruitment per capita are rural and/or conservative.

Do some math man 170K out of 330 million even if you were to be extremely generous and take the total of people in active duty 1.3-1.5 million we don't even crack the top 10 for per capita service. Our armed forces are only able to recruit because as you know the standards are extremely low most recruits would not pass if they kept their standards high.

Again you think people are going to pick up weapons to fight their neighbors when you can't even get most Americans to care enough to vote or serve.

[Mayhem]

Do you have a wife, mother sister, grandmother? If someone breaks into their house in the middle of the night would you rather they have a cell phone in their hands? or would you rather they have the ability to defend themselves? England has basically no guns and home invasions are extremely common. On top of that you have potential president/vice president that wants to defund police while they cheer on their citizens rioting/burning down buildings and assaulting people in mobs. Harris advocated for bailing out these rioters and letting them back out on the street.

Do you have anything that backs up the bolded part?

[Kellhound]

Thank you for posting this. Though I would like to point that that Republicans are generally wealthier than Dems, so I'd like to see the breakdown by income, and what those numbers would look like if the NRA didn't lobby against cheaper gun manufaturing.



Sure it does. If they knew how to use a gun, they'd prove it, rather than scream at me for days on end.

Least they could do is shoot me.

Actually, the NRA has fought against laws restricting access to inexpensive firearms (see Saturday night special laws).

So, to prove they know how to use a gun, they would have to break the law, losing the ability to own a gun. Seems they are smarter than you in this regard.

- - - Updated - - -

Do some math man 170K out of 330 million even if you were to be extremely generous and take the total of people in active duty 1.3-1.5 million we don't even crack the top 10 for per capita service. Our armed forces are only able to recruit because as you know the standards are extremely low most recruits would not pass if they kept their standards high.

Again you think people are going to pick up weapons to fight their neighbors when you can't even get most Americans to care enough to vote or serve.

Again, I do not expect city slickers to do anything but be the passive slugs they are. That is kind of the point.....

[Saucexorzski]

Again, I do not expect city slickers to do anything but be the passive slugs they are. That is kind of the point.....

It's far more likely the armed inner city folks would end up preying upon others in tha city than for them to come out into the country to prey on rural folks. Cities would just eat themselves into manageable numbers instead of the bloated numbers they can maintain due to the food, energy, and water shipped in from rural areas.

[Draco-Onis]

Again, I do not expect city slickers to do anything but be the passive slugs they are. That is kind of the point.....

Also in your fantasy which geriatric millionaire politician is going to step away from the comforts of their mansion and lifestyle to lead any side of this civil war?

[Kellhound]

Also in your fantasy which geriatric millionaire politician is going to step away from the comforts of their mansion and lifestyle to lead any side of this civil war?

Because those are the only people who can lead one

[Zan15]

Human waves do not do well when the waves are unarmed. Gun ownership in the US is heavily tilted to conservatives.

During a civil war, the value of US money would drop like the Lira. Even if it didn't, there are not enough mercenaries in the world (let alone the ability to transport and sustain them) for it to matter. Besides, people living in cities are too soft from having everything done for them.

Their access to capital would fund all the weapons they need.
They are also the ones doing all the manufacturing and supplying.

as for the value of money, that did not impact the North in the last war since they too had all the capital and the means.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for posting this. Though I would like to point that that Republicans are generally wealthier than Dems, so I'd like to see the breakdown by income, and what those numbers would look like if the NRA didn't lobby against cheaper gun manufaturing.

.

wait what? Republicans wealthier?

Everything i read and all the studies have democrats ahead in the top brackets by a few %'s, about statistical tie in the middle and the very bottom >30k its twice as many republicans vs democrats.
Of course this is because at the very high income brackets, the super rich, tend to be liberals. The rich lean republican but it takes a lot of them to make up for the huge difference in liberal billionares vs conservative ones. Hell it takes a lot of them just to catch up to the top 5

GDP wise clinton had 64% of the total GDP in the counties she won. That's a huge difference.



DETAILED FAMILY INCOME

Rep Dem Ind Other/DK Rep/Lean Rep Dem/Lean Dem
$150,000+ 33 32 32 46 48
$100,000 to $149,99934 30 33 51 45
$75,000 to $99,999 31 30 35 48 44
$50,000 to $74,999 32 30 35 49 44
$40,000 to $49,999 31 31 35 47 46
$30,000 to $39,999 31 33 33 47 46
<$30,000 20 43 34 32 60

[Kellhound]

Their access to capital would fund all the weapons they need.
They are also the ones doing all the manufacturing and supplying.

as for the value of money, that did not impact the North in the last war since they too had all the capital and the means.

Most of their capitol would vanish overnight, because the US economy would collapse instantly and most of the major population centers would be without food, water, electricity etc. They would not be doing any manufacturing, because all of their raw materials would be gone, and they would have a hard time supplying anything to anyone being cut off in small urban islands in a sea of rural land.

[the game]

Most of their capitol would vanish overnight, because the US economy would collapse instantly and most of the major population centers would be without food, water, electricity etc. They would not be doing any manufacturing, because all of their raw materials would be gone, and they would have a hard time supplying anything to anyone being cut off in small urban islands in a sea of rural land.

Also rural america controls the food supply since we have all the farmers. All we have to do is wait for the city folk to starve to death.

[Specialka]

Also rural america controls the food supply since we have all the farmers. All we have to do is wait for the city folk to starve to death.

Or come outside the city and gun down the farmers to get the food silo.

[Kellhound]

Or come outside the city and gun down the farmers to get the food silo.

Good luck surviving long enough to even see a silo...

[Specialka]

Good luck surviving long enough to even see a silo...

Your argument also means that most rural population would die as well, leaving no one.

[Kellhound]

Your argument also means that most rural population would die as well, leaving no one.

They are far more likely to have continued access to food, water, and electricity simply because they would be controlling most of it or have easier access to replacement sources.

[Specialka]

They are far more likely to have continued access to food, water, and electricity simply because they would be controlling most of it or have easier access to replacement sources.

This is very far fetched and most likely not meant to pass.

[Draco-Onis]

Because those are the only people who can lead one

Actually yes because you need high profile people to push your cause so let's summarize you think a low profile group make up of yokels is going to start a civil war with virtually zero support from the general population. Since you won't have public support you can forget about that movement catching on so you are basically going to have a bunch of domestic terrorist living wherever with no funds, food, replacement troops, money or way to sustain their fevered dream.

[Mayhem]

Ok, so this thread is now about rural vs urban population?

The rural population somehow despite being vastly outnumbered would be able to protect food, water, and energy supply simultaneously, and the city folks would just starve...

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a lunatics dream at all.

[Zan15]

Also rural america controls the food supply since we have all the farmers. All we have to do is wait for the city folk to starve to death.

lol the majority of food supply is/are controlled by corporations.
More than enough to feed the people of the city.

Farmers would collapse without the urban markets including supplies and equipment manufacturing.

Most of their capitol would vanish overnight, because the US economy would collapse instantly and most of the major population centers would be without food, water, electricity etc. They would not be doing any manufacturing, because all of their raw materials would be gone, and they would have a hard time supplying anything to anyone being cut off in small urban islands in a sea of rural land.

the collapse would be static over the entire worlds economy resetting the base value of their capital. The dollar might only be worth a fraction of what it was pre-war but its buying power would not be impacted since prices would collapse along with the value of the dollar.


B- most water supplies are not something managed by rural area's. This is all corporate/state/city owned/managed. It would hardly be impacted.
C- electricity is even more so managed by the same group. Rural area's are even more dependent on this corporate supply of electricity.
D- Most raw materials are imported of which are controlled on the coast by those evil coastal elites.



The whole key here is corporations are going to continue being corporations. Selling to both sides. Making money on war.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so this thread is now about rural vs urban population?

The rural population somehow despite being vastly outnumbered would be able to protect food, water, and energy supply simultaneously, and the city folks would just starve...

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a lunatics dream at all.

besides the fact that two out of the three are not even something the rural population runs.
Electricity generation and supply, nope.
Water? Water farms, lol NO.

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck surviving long enough to even see a silo...

LOL farmer and family surviving an armed invasion by urban individuals whom are also armed....sounds just like a movie that is unrealistic.

Most of supply of arms, storage, warehousing, manufacturing are all near or in urban area's.
If shit hits the fan the access to arms would easily be a huge advantage to those living in the cities.

[Mayhem]

LOL farmer and family surviving an armed invasion by urban individuals whom are also armed....sounds just like a movie that is unrealistic.

Most of supply of arms, storage, warehousing, manufacturing are all near or in urban area's.
If shit hits the fan the access to arms would easily be a huge advantage to those living in the cities.

Seriously though, I mean each and every argument just backfires.

Urban folks despite being richer could not make much out of their wealth because money would be worthless. Well, then good luck trying to buy enough ammo to protect all of the rural areas, unless of course rural gunshops somehow would just give ammo out for free or bread.

It's like not being able to count past 2.

[Zython]

Their access to capital would fund all the weapons they need.
They are also the ones doing all the manufacturing and supplying.

as for the value of money, that did not impact the North in the last war since they too had all the capital and the means.

- - - Updated - - -



wait what? Republicans wealthier?

Everything i read and all the studies have democrats ahead in the top brackets by a few %'s, about statistical tie in the middle and the very bottom >30k its twice as many republicans vs democrats.
Of course this is because at the very high income brackets, the super rich, tend to be liberals. The rich lean republican but it takes a lot of them to make up for the huge difference in liberal billionares vs conservative ones. Hell it takes a lot of them just to catch up to the top 5

GDP wise clinton had 64% of the total GDP in the counties she won. That's a huge difference.



DETAILED FAMILY INCOME

Rep Dem Ind Other/DK Rep/Lean Rep Dem/Lean Dem
$150,000+ 33 32 32 46 48
$100,000 to $149,99934 30 33 51 45
$75,000 to $99,999 31 30 35 48 44
$50,000 to $74,999 32 30 35 49 44
$40,000 to $49,999 31 31 35 47 46
$30,000 to $39,999 31 33 33 47 46
<$30,000 20 43 34 32 60

[Draco-Onis]

SNIP

You do know people that voted incomes doesn't represent the wealth of a state since most people don't vote right? around 50% of the US population doesn't vote with 2016 having the lowest overall turn out. You may as well be linking the incomes of people who watch reality shows to indicate the GDP of states.