Another angle on the recent events in America and the world

[vnatale]

Just under a mile (I looked it up). It’s part of my nearly daily routine to go by there, pre-Corona.
Honestly, I agree with Trump’s call for the National Guard.

He has also authorized the military to go into cities.


President Trump authorizes US military to respond to riots, looting nationwide

President said Washington, D.C.'s 7 p.m. curfew will be strictly enforced

https://www.wsls.com/news/2020/06/01/pr ... ationwide/

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

Owning a gun has scant relevance to defending yourself against terrorists, burglars, or flying saucers. It’s about defending yourself against a police state that does not care for your well-being or your liberties.

Of course I agree with your comments about the police state.
But you're wrong about burglars. Most burglaries in some countries are when the victims are home ("hot burglaries") and in other countries (the US, for example) they are mostly when the victims are not home. The reason is that if a lot of homeowners have guns, the burglar is more likely to be shot if the victims are at home:

"In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

"Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. "

[Libertarian666]

I wonder how many serious gun owners there are in the US. Because the ones I have known have many guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. And there are a lot of them. There have to be hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo in private hands.

8 billion rounds produced per year: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... mmo-a-year

[Libertarian666]

I wonder how many serious gun owners there are in the US. Because the ones I have known have many guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. And there are a lot of them. There have to be hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo in private hands.

There are enough of them to take on their police departments. Maybe. But how are they going to do against the military?

Vinny

Are you assuming that the military would all follow orders to attack the citizenry? Because I suspect such an order would be resisted and not just by a few people.

[Libertarian666]

I think this might be somewhat related to this topic.

How close or far do you live from any of the unrest of the last several days?

Closest to me is Boston - 1.75 hours / 90 miles away.

Where I live is quite rural, economically diverse neighborhood, houses with wide ranging values ($100,000 to $500,000?). I'd expect us to be one of the last areas to be affected, if ever.

Vinny

We live about 100 miles from Dallas, surrounded by cows. If the Antifa creeps ever come out here, they won't last long.

[l82start]

I think this might be somewhat related to this topic.

How close or far do you live from any of the unrest of the last several days?

Closest to me is Boston - 1.75 hours / 90 miles away.

Where I live is quite rural, economically diverse neighborhood, houses with wide ranging values ($100,000 to $500,000?). I'd expect us to be one of the last areas to be affected, if ever.

Vinny

We live about 100 miles from Dallas, surrounded by cows. If the Antifa creeps ever come out here, they won't last long.

7 to 10 blocks away from where i am..

[vnatale]

We are a relatively tiny group here. When I asked the question I was not expecting so many to be so close. So far it's a fairly highly proportion of those who have disclosed.

Vinny

[Smith1776]

Owning a gun has scant relevance to defending yourself against terrorists, burglars, or flying saucers. It’s about defending yourself against a police state that does not care for your well-being or your liberties.

Of course I agree with your comments about the police state.
But you're wrong about burglars. Most burglaries in some countries are when the victims are home ("hot burglaries") and in other countries (the US, for example) they are mostly when the victims are not home. The reason is that if a lot of homeowners have guns, the burglar is more likely to be shot if the victims are at home:

"In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

"Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. "

Another poster earlier mentioned this as well and I figure I should respond. I agree with your contention actually. I should elaborate about what I meant with the statement you quoted.

When I say that owning a gun is not so much about burglars etc., I don't mean to say it's not an effective deterrent. What I was implying was that the principle of gun ownership and the second amendment is first and foremost about the public's relationship to government. It is, as a principle, so dangerous to have a well armed government and unarmed citizens. The defense of oneself from burglars just wasn't as relevant to the political stance I was talking about in the OP.

[vnatale]

Owning a gun has scant relevance to defending yourself against terrorists, burglars, or flying saucers. It’s about defending yourself against a police state that does not care for your well-being or your liberties.

Of course I agree with your comments about the police state.
But you're wrong about burglars. Most burglaries in some countries are when the victims are home ("hot burglaries") and in other countries (the US, for example) they are mostly when the victims are not home. The reason is that if a lot of homeowners have guns, the burglar is more likely to be shot if the victims are at home:

"In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

"Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. "

What I read seemed to make sense in that those breaking into a house are going to take the path of least resistance. Therefore, things like having the house brightly lit outside and having a dog are excellent deterrents. I can guarantee that when I had my white German Shepherd who was really quite sweet but who appeared ferocious when you came near my house that anyone with intent coming to my house would say, "Let's go elsewhere."

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

Owning a gun has scant relevance to defending yourself against terrorists, burglars, or flying saucers. It’s about defending yourself against a police state that does not care for your well-being or your liberties.

Of course I agree with your comments about the police state.
But you're wrong about burglars. Most burglaries in some countries are when the victims are home ("hot burglaries") and in other countries (the US, for example) they are mostly when the victims are not home. The reason is that if a lot of homeowners have guns, the burglar is more likely to be shot if the victims are at home:

"In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

"Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. "

Another poster earlier mentioned this as well and I figure I should respond. I agree with your contention actually. I should elaborate about what I meant with the statement you quoted.

When I say that owning a gun is not so much about burglars etc., I don't mean to say it's not an effective deterrent. What I was implying was that the principle of gun ownership and the second amendment is first and foremost about the public's relationship to government. It is, as a principle, so dangerous to have a well armed government and unarmed citizens. The defense of oneself from burglars just wasn't as relevant to the political stance I was talking about in the OP.

Yes, of course that was the original reason and still the most important one.

[vnatale]

When I say that owning a gun is not so much about burglars etc., I don't mean to say it's not an effective deterrent. What I was implying was that the principle of gun ownership and the second amendment is first and foremost about the public's relationship to government. It is, as a principle, so dangerous to have a well armed government and unarmed citizens. The defense of oneself from burglars just wasn't as relevant to the political stance I was talking about in the OP.

If the military turned against the citizens I don't care how well armed those citizens are, they are not going to win. Do any of you know any well-armed citizens who can fight against tanks and planes? The 2nd amendment was written way before either of those was ever imagined.

Vinny

[Smith1776]

When I say that owning a gun is not so much about burglars etc., I don't mean to say it's not an effective deterrent. What I was implying was that the principle of gun ownership and the second amendment is first and foremost about the public's relationship to government. It is, as a principle, so dangerous to have a well armed government and unarmed citizens. The defense of oneself from burglars just wasn't as relevant to the political stance I was talking about in the OP.

If the military turned against the citizens I don't care how well armed those citizens are, they are not going to win. Do any of you know any well-armed citizens who can fight against tanks and planes? The 2nd amendment was written way before either of those was ever imagined.

Vinny

Right on, and that's exactly why I detest the insidious and slow erosion of the second amendment via proposals to ban certain "styles" of firearms. It only makes that gap in firepower larger. No "assault-style" firearms? What's next? No pistols and only knives? What then? No knives and only sticks?

[Smith1776]

insurgency by an armed citizenry can work, think guerilla warfare, not only is it effective but at a speed that would make your head spin arms dealers will be selling them equipment to match force... I seriously doubt it would come to that though, because as others have pointed out, the American military are gun and freedom loving citizens

+1

[drumminj]

Peaceful protests are fine.
But riots must be put down by force, and looters must be shot.
Anything else is encouraging more violence.

I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as you state above, but agree that riots must be put down by force. Instead, what we saw here is 1) the looters were largely ignored, 2) a curfew was enacted but not enforced, and 3) the crowd was not dispersed.

IMO, as soon as violence happens you clear the area. If that means the protest gets shut down, sorry, but the police should maintain order. Work with protest organizers to communicate of when it's safe to resume again.

Instead, our police sent a message that folks can show up and riot and loot without repercussion. Reading twitter, at least some business owners don't agree with that and were planning to more aggressively defend their businesses today/this evening.

[dualstow]

We are a relatively tiny group here. When I asked the question I was not expecting so many to be so close. So far it's a fairly highly proportion of those who have disclosed.

It may be that those of us who live nearby are more motivated to chime in.
—-
Very interesting stats, tech. (Below)

Owning a gun has scant relevance to defending yourself against terrorists, burglars, or flying saucers. It’s about defending yourself against a police state that does not care for your well-being or your liberties.

Of course I agree with your comments about the police state.
But you're wrong about burglars. Most burglaries in some countries are when the victims are home ("hot burglaries") and in other countries (the US, for example) they are mostly when the victims are not home. The reason is that if a lot of homeowners have guns, the burglar is more likely to be shot if the victims are at home:

"In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

"By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

"Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. "

[Kriegsspiel]

Yesterday when I was not socially distancing from people I was telling them my theory; Antifa's plan this time around is to seed riots by harnessing the mob mentality. Whereas before it would be a big crowd of Antifa rioting (in Portland, for example), it looks like this time they waited until a mob had formed, and then a few of them would go start escalating the situation. But they have mis-read at least a significant portion of people in the crowds. In DC, but a crowd captured and physically carried an Antifa rioter to the police. In Pittsburgh, an Antifa was destroying a cop car and the crowd berated him until he left. Someone called in a tip to the police, and he's now been arrested. My hunch is that the Umbrella Man who smashed the Auto Zone windows then left was an Antifa who was doing the same thing.

I think Antifa majorly overestimated how popular they are with most Americans. It looks like most everyone hates them. This is good news; much like insurgents, groups like Antifa need the support of the populace in order to hide. If most people don't like what you're doing, they'll turn you in and police can roll up the network, if they're so inclined. One wishes the FBI hadn't wasted time and manpower investigating and trying to frame Trump, and focused on this type of thing instead.

[I Shrugged]

Before it gets to the point of military vs citizens, said citizens will have been thoroughly demonized so that it will be much easier for the state’s agents to act in good conscience. An inexact example would be David Koresh and the rest at Waco. Or Jews in Germany, intellectuals in Russia and lots of other countries, etc.

[Libertarian666]

When I say that owning a gun is not so much about burglars etc., I don't mean to say it's not an effective deterrent. What I was implying was that the principle of gun ownership and the second amendment is first and foremost about the public's relationship to government. It is, as a principle, so dangerous to have a well armed government and unarmed citizens. The defense of oneself from burglars just wasn't as relevant to the political stance I was talking about in the OP.

If the military turned against the citizens I don't care how well armed those citizens are, they are not going to win. Do any of you know any well-armed citizens who can fight against tanks and planes? The 2nd amendment was written way before either of those was ever imagined.

Vinny

I recommend asking the Afghans and the Soviets how that worked out for them.

[vnatale]

Before it gets to the point of military vs citizens, said citizens will have been thoroughly demonized so that it will be much easier for the state’s agents to act in good conscience. An inexact example would be David Koresh and the rest at Waco. Or Jews in Germany, intellectuals in Russia and lots of other countries, etc.

What exactly do you hold to be the crimes of "David Koresh and the rest at Waco"?

Vinny

[moda0306]

Before it gets to the point of military vs citizens, said citizens will have been thoroughly demonized so that it will be much easier for the state’s agents to act in good conscience. An inexact example would be David Koresh and the rest at Waco. Or Jews in Germany, intellectuals in Russia and lots of other countries, etc.

That's what the lamestream media is trying to do to Trump supporters.
But it's not going to work.
Especially because he is very popular with the military.

What are you talking about...

[vnatale]

When I say that owning a gun is not so much about burglars etc., I don't mean to say it's not an effective deterrent. What I was implying was that the principle of gun ownership and the second amendment is first and foremost about the public's relationship to government. It is, as a principle, so dangerous to have a well armed government and unarmed citizens. The defense of oneself from burglars just wasn't as relevant to the political stance I was talking about in the OP.

If the military turned against the citizens I don't care how well armed those citizens are, they are not going to win. Do any of you know any well-armed citizens who can fight against tanks and planes? The 2nd amendment was written way before either of those was ever imagined.

Vinny

I recommend asking the Afghans and the Soviets how that worked out for them.

I would not compare the typical Afghan to the typical American. We live a much softer life than them as evidenced by 35.5% of us being obese while only 5.5% of them are.

Vinny

[Lonestar]

Am I the only one here that thinks part of the reason the rioting has gotten so out of hand is bc of the Covid lockdown? I agree with Scott Adams that this has set the progress of Black back 10 years. But doesn't take much to make people snap under the conditions we've been under.

I’m with you Pug. My wife and I just had that conversation. And we added hot weather to the mix. Pressure cooker times indeed.

Very good point, but all of us on this forum have had to endure these issues and inconveniences for the last couple of months. Yet how many of us have had the urge to loot, set buildings and/or police cars on fire or create mass confusion to law abiding citizens? Who knows? Maybe more than I think.................

[I Shrugged]

Before it gets to the point of military vs citizens, said citizens will have been thoroughly demonized so that it will be much easier for the state’s agents to act in good conscience. An inexact example would be David Koresh and the rest at Waco. Or Jews in Germany, intellectuals in Russia and lots of other countries, etc.

What exactly do you hold to be the crimes of "David Koresh and the rest at Waco"?

Vinny

Not much of anything, near as I could tell afterwards. But the government told us they were raping minors etc.

[vnatale]

Before it gets to the point of military vs citizens, said citizens will have been thoroughly demonized so that it will be much easier for the state’s agents to act in good conscience. An inexact example would be David Koresh and the rest at Waco. Or Jews in Germany, intellectuals in Russia and lots of other countries, etc.

What exactly do you hold to be the crimes of "David Koresh and the rest at Waco"?

Vinny

Not much of anything, near as I could tell afterwards. But the government told us they were raping minors etc.

Yes. You have it about right.

Vinny

[dualstow]

I think Antifa majorly overestimated how popular they are with most Americans. It looks like most everyone hates them.

If ever there was a misnomer, it’s the name Antifa. I know, they chose it for a reason, so I can’t call it a true misnomer. But it’s like cockroaches calling themselves the The Anti-Termite Federation. But they’re cockroaches.