This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Guns

Jump to new
Neither of those statements "bunk" anything.

The Constitution is what the US is founded on. Right or wrong, thats what they operate with.
 

I'm not in the Army though.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I know practically nothing about the military but a question for those who do.

If a war breaks out between the US and whoever, roughly what % of fighting will take place using soldiers on the ground carrying guns?
Click to expand...
Air/sea strikes followed by Marines. Generally you need a lot of soldiers to clear a city.
I think they estimated that the United States would need 500,000 troops in Afghanistan to secure the whole of the country.
 
moXJO said:
Air/sea strikes followed by Marines. Generally you need a lot of soldiers to clear a city.
I think they estimated that the United States would need 500,000 troops in Afghanistan to secure the whole of the country.
Click to expand...

I'm no military expert and such ( I know, no kidding), but from just watching docos and lectures, seems the "new" (Western) ways of war since the "strategic blunder" that was Iraq and Afghanistan is to no longer occupy or pacify or liberate an entire country.

That just cost too many boots and them boots are needed everywhere nowadays.

What they tend to do now is use a heck of a lot of firepower from sea and air; let loose a few drones the keep the skies friendly and the ground soft... then simply send in a few boots to "protect" valuable assets. Assets like oil and gas pipelines, mines and friends of democracy.

For bigger ventures like Iraq where they already blundered into the quagmire, they no longer try to take control of cities or villages. They simply set up "green zones", put walls and troops on and around to protect it and selected valuable personnels and comrades inside.

Whatever and whoever outside of those green zones can have fun among themselves.

Then if a group or two of terrorist got too big that they'd take over a city or two of value, i.e. controls oil and access to other valuables. It's only then that the Marines, or special advisors with local friendlies, are sent out and with massive amount of shock and awe, flatten and pacify the place. e.g. Mosul.


These are strategies against relatively weak, no-hope sort of enemies. Things might be a bit different when it's up against serious foes and challengers who could actually fight back with proper air force, drones and Facebook postings

Seems the US (and the International Community) are drawing up a list of leaders they deemed as "threats to democracy". Among them are Cambodia's Hun Sen and the Phillipines Duterte and the generals in Myannmar.

Not that I don't agree with the designation... just that those who made this list seems to also be too friendly towards the Chinese and not showing enough love for Western sense of freedom and democracy.

So in coming years, South East Asia might be like Syria over the past few years. Special advisors will be sent in to take out the tyrants. The comrades in Beijing will not like that so much as it messed with their plans and the map of Asia might very well be redrawn again.

With a few countries/proxies having a "civil war" each... there will probably be a whole lot of boots made in the US, ANZ, China, Japan, Korea, and the former colonies.

As some Lockheed Martin exec puts it a couple of years ago, SE Asia is a 'growth' area full of opportunities.
 
moXJO said:
Again, argue with the 2nd amendment.
That was the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment at the time (you checked the date right?).
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is not specific.

There has been previous bans on assault weapons etc and there is nothing to prohibit strong regulation of weapons as some US states already do.
BTW police deaths due to shooters is far less in the regulated US states.

Assault rifles were available when I was younger Queensland being the last state to prohibit ownership (I think).

As an aside there are around 180,000 fully auto functional assault rifles in the US that you can still buy 2nd hand for about $20K.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I know practically nothing about the military but a question for those who do.

If a war breaks out between the US and whoever, roughly what % of fighting will take place using soldiers on the ground carrying guns?
Click to expand...
It completely depends on the objective, and who the enemy is.

But in wars like Afganistan and Iraq, most of the important stuff is done with troops on the ground.

It’s not really considered ok to carpet bomb a town anymore, you have to basically go and kick the door in and get the bad guy without harming the kids sleeping in the next room.
 

You sure that's not the Disney version?

No carpet bombing, just knock down one building... then another, then another. At least that's what the Israelis did on Gaza during its last "mowing the lawn". Well, they kinda give a gentle "knock" through the roof first then in 5 minutes the building comes down no matter who's in it.

Been shown a fair bit of Russian/Assad leveling of parts of Syria lately. No denying the footage from me... but it does raise the question of what does "our guys" shooting back, or leveling, look like. Pretty similar I'd bet. Got to go to RT to watch them though.

You reckon the only way for world peace is, as the NRA suggests, everybody have a nuke?
 
Value Collector said:
Yeah, but you know you can change that right? That’s why it has amendments
Click to expand...
33 proposed since 1788 with 27 ratified. Don't like the chances. I don't agree with thd amount of guns there. But the Constitution was drafted for a reason. And given their gun culture and the division and distrust, I do not see assault rifles being banned just yet. It's not easy to change.

Freedom and rights can be a horrible thing. Mainly because people are inherently stupid.
 
Towns are softened up before they send the troops in. US just sends the Kurds in so US troops don't get shot.

It is extremely challenging taking cities though.
 
Pretty sure you can get AR15 in NZ.
Everyone talks about aussie gun ban. But I'm sure gun deaths in NZ have been falling over the last few decades.
I'm sure a guy had an AK47 and got caught and sentenced to home detention.
They have had mass shootings in the past but not for a long time.
 
Lots of door to door operations happen, even on massive scale such as Fallujah.

 
They tried to renew that ban and introduce one with no sunset clause and it was sunk. From memory Bill Clinton put that in place.
Automatic weapons were banned after a massacre 80s or 90s maybe?

I'm saying in the current political climate it won't happen. Dems need control and numbers for it to happen and even then it won't happen easy.
The people don't trust the government.
And they only ban the sale generally of any new weapons sold.
And a lot of state bans get struck down in court.
 
moXJO said:
I'm saying in the current political climate it won't happen. Dems need control and numbers for it to happen and even then it won't happen easy.
Click to expand...

Mid term elections coming up soon, lets see what happens then.
 
I am not for guns, but was just stating that they had similar views.

----------------------------

GENEVA — The Swiss are armed to the teeth.

Only the United States and Yemen have more guns per capita than this Alpine nation of 8.5 million people.

But mass shootings are rare here unlike in the U.S. where the country is still reeling from its latest tragedy at a Florida high school that left 17 dead.

About 2 million guns are estimated to be in circulation in Switzerland, according to GunPolicy. org, which publishes international data on firearms.

Though weapons are ubiquitous here and gun laws are relatively liberal, crime is low. In the past 10 years, guns were used in less than 120 homicides, government figures show.

Switzerland hasn’t seen a mass shooting since 2001, when a gunman opened fire in the legislative body in the Canton of Zug, fatally shooting 14 people before killing himself.

So, what is Switzerland doing differently?

Vigilance is one factor.

As an extra safety net, the government encourages professionals like mental health providers to report anyone they suspect of being dangerous, and has created a database listing all gun license refusals.

“We check it every time someone wants to purchase a firearm to make sure it doesn’t end up in wrong hands,” said Lulzana Musliu, a spokeswoman for the Federal Office of Police, which oversees the sale and licensing of guns.

For the U.S., 2017 was considered the deadliest year for mass shootings in more than a decade. The runner-up: 2016, which saw 188 people lost in such attacks.

The Florida shooting rampage has rekindled interest in legislation that allows a judge to order authorities to remove guns from a threatening person or prevent a gun sale if a police officer or relative makes the request.

At least five states in the U.S. have adopted the measures allowing for police to remove weapons or prevent gun sales, under what are often called "extreme risk protection orders." Legislation is pending in Congress urging states to adopt more of the provisions. President Trump and Florida Gov. Rick Scott have each said they will review gun restrictions in an effort to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.


In Switzerland, the government also banned immigrants from eight countries, including Algeria, Sri Lanka, Turkey and nations of ex-Yugoslavia from owning firearms. This rule stems from political conflicts and hostilities that simmer within these groups, posing “a serious threat” to the safety of our population, Musliu added.

Oversight and legal restrictions only go so far. What also keeps gun violence under control is the sense of responsibility deeply engrained in this safety-conscious society.

“The Swiss use their guns for target practice or hunting. Unlike Americans, they don’t arm themselves to protect their families or commit crime,” Martin Killias, criminology expert at Lausanne University told Geneva’s daily newspaper, Le Temps.

The Swiss Shooting Sports Association has about 3,000 clubs across the country, including a youth section where children as young as 12 learn to handle and shoot a gun safely. Last year, the Defense Ministry contributed about $860,000 for training, and the government donated 10,585 army assault rifles and 930,000 rounds of ammunition to gun clubs.

Swiss history of gun ownership

Since World War II, soldiers serving in the Swiss military kept their weapons and ammunition at home. This gave rise to the famous “gun in every closet” phrase pro-gun lobbyists in the U.S. and elsewhere used to tout Switzerland’s liberal arms law.

But that changed somewhat in 2007, a year after Swiss champion skier Corinne Rey-Bellet and her brother were shot by Corinne's estranged husband, who used his old military-issue rifle to commit the murder.

After that incident, the government ordered that ammunition for army weapons be left in arsenals, although the guns could still be kept at home.

Anti-gun activists argued that this rule was ineffective, because it didn’t apply to weapons owned by civilians — collectors, hunters and amateur marksmen. The mainstream consensus was that Swiss gun owners didn’t need any more restrictions because the existing laws regulating the sale and licensing of private guns were stringent enough.

In 2011, 56% of voters rejected a referendum by leftist parties and church groups trying to ban military guns from private homes on the grounds that existing laws were strict enough.
 
I keep thinking - "What events would challege the political structures in the US to re examine the free availability of assault weapons ?"

There have been repeated massacres in malls, schools, nighclubs, churches, parades all types of public events. I wonder however what impact would such events in business meetings, country clubs or "God Forbid" a place like Mar-a-Lago would create ?

Would incidents in these types of places have a different impact ?
 
basilio said:
Would incidents in these types of places have a different impact ?
Click to expand...

If the murders of schoolchildren or innocent churchgoers (a big deal in religious USA) has no effect I think it's likely nothing will.

I think that a lot of people including politicians are scared to campaign against guns for for of attracting attention by the crazies, and a bullet or three at their next doorstop.

Even John Howard had to wear a flak jacket in rural areas when trying to get his gun laws through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
M
Slump Moves From Wall St. to Main St.
Replies
0
Views
3K
metric
M
Bush Family Hedge Fund in Trouble
Replies
5
Views
5K
gfresh
G
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...