I agree but it's about the principle. It's an interesting thing to try and speculate about. Would the US military with superior arms and 1 million soldiers dominate 75 million gun-carrying citizens? Sounds like something for Binkov's Battlegrounds to tackle
Would a more sound principle not be to cultivate a society in which being armed is not a prerequisite for a person to feel safe in society? In terms of a well armed populace being used to overthrow/counter a tyrannical government, their real utility is likely to be in settling political disputes between the populace. Civil War MK II shit. Which actually plays into the hands of the ruling class in many regards. I don't think there's the cohesion, will or nous within contemporary America to be able to federalise into a 75 million strong militia. edit: Cheers for the heads up with Binkov's Battlegrounds. Interesting channel.
Smaller, weaker victim vs. larger, stronger attacker. A firearm makes a small woman equal to a big male. It's an equalizer for a lot of physically weaker people in society. As Breivik has demonstrated for us in Norway, bad guys can and will get firearms from black markets. You're basically disarming the good guys with gun regulation.
Slightly unrelated - are you American? And if so, do you view Afghanistan as another L on the record?
It is a fact that America is awash in guns and that there is an obvious problem with guns throughout the society. Massacres have become ordinary... Says it all really. Now, I understand that it's a different culture from my own, and its a cultural phenomenon that I'll, admittedly, never get my head around. However, from how I view it as an outsider, some forms of control do have to be implemented, for the children and grandchildren sakes, while at the same time the rights of contemporary gun owning Americans do need to be respected, many of whom are well within their rights to own a gun and do so diligently and responsibly. I actually think most Americans would be on board with some forms of regulation, in light of the ongoing massacres. A big problem seems to be the politicisation of the issue (although how could it not be?) and the NRA's position within this dynamic. The fact that the NRA do not advocate for any type of control measures, only furthers exacerbates the public backlash that follows any tragedy, which will result in more severe legislation in the future, than what could have been agreed upon if done in a mature and respectful way. Public opinion is against the NRA and their position is untenable in a civilised society. Not sure if Afghanistan is an apt comparison. It is a decent thought though.! Thinking of the US becoming like Afghanistan... I'm all about that kinda cosmic irony.
I don't see that as dealing with the root of the issue though, just exacerbating grievances. Following the 'guns as equalisers' thought to it's logical conclusion, you end up with the teachers in Texas classrooms being armed, with students that feel threatened by their teacher or peers, that then turn up at the school one day with a semi-automatic and paint the halls red. Situations which should be resolved by discourse, debates, arguments, even fists, suddenly become lights out situations. Anders Breivik is such an outlier in western Europe, hence why it (alongside things like the Dunblane massacre in Scotland in the early 90s) are always held up as thee firearm tragedies, and rather (as tragic as it sounds) I feel further reinforce the benefits of removing all guns from society. Whereas in America, that's the norm on a weekly basis...
I like to prepare before a situation occurs, that's why I have a gun within reach 99% of the time. You just never know nowadays. There's some crazy Mofo's out there. I also don't flaunt it. I shoot regularly.
Yes, I recognize all the arguments, I used to make them myself. Vehemently so. As you pointed out in your previous post, it's a different culture, and we swim in a very different soup here. We exist in a very anti-gun culture, and are exposed to very little pro-gun mentality, and our medias demonize it. We view the American gun situation from a European perspective - and it's as poor as viewing the Middle East's stance on democracy through a Western perspective. It's a different situation over there. The Riddle of the Gun | Sam Harris Have a read. Helped me understand.
I get the sentiment, and I remember I was first exposed to it really from yourself I think years ago when you stated, "I'd never own a gun in Europe, but if I lived in America I'd definitely own a gun", or something to that effect. And I get it, and alluded to that perspective in the previous post. However, I just can't see that being an effective method of curbing the massacres that we do see in the US. Stricter regulation, greater discourse around mental health and wider society being aware of individuals perhaps being unhinged are all things that should be happening anyway, but none of those things deal with the fact there are too many guns floating around and there is an enabling political arm of government (republican government?) that exacerbates the issue. To. my mind there's going to need to be an inter-generational phasing out of firearms themselves and the whole bubble around them, starting with stricter regulation and putting limits on the amount of power that the NRA wields (due to their un co-operative nature). It's definitely one for the long haul.
I don't claim to know the solution. To me, it's as complicated as it is tragic. NRA certainly isn't helping.
Where are we going with this? The Taliban, Isis, Al Qaeda much like the mujahideen that held off the Russians, will be there long after we have left. And they have done so without a single Tank, APC, Heavy artillery or aircraft. What are the actual numbers of fighters that Taliban, Isis, Al Qaeda have fielded against us? Tens of thousands? Certainly not millions upon millions of gun owners like here in the States. As for "winning" not gonna happen, we will experience acts of terrorism from them again, and again we will move to stop them the best we can.
I didn't mean to derail the thread. Will make a separate one in a few months when we see the dust settle. I was just curious; leaving Afghanistan is a big event and I don't see it discussed much at all in the American circles I move in.
I believe it was, yes. If planes had been flown into Rica Seilet or Mjøstårnet, I think you would also.