Question: Has there ever been a 'realistic' study of how many would be killed & wounded in a complete U.S. Gun Confiscation?

[tac]

Idk. I had a family member (while inebriated to be fairish) call me an f'ing you know what sucker when asked why we should just make guns hard to get instead of fixing things like mental health.

I didn't even argue. Just asked the question "why strip people's rights when we could actually try to help better our society's health"

The civil war had families split due to sides. I'm sure it would happen again.

My own dad was part of a family split by civil war. Thankishly, after it was all over, they agreed to shake hands and move on, simply in order to move on. But there are STILL families in Ireland where the division is very clearly defined, even though they are the grandchildren of those who participated.

 

[The Heretic]

Sure there will be hold outs, but how effective?

Hard to say. As I replied, it will depend on the approach taken by those pushing confiscation and when (the longer they wait, the smaller the number of hold outs will be as we grow ever smaller over time).

Here are a few observations though that I think are not debatable:

1) There will be hold outs. Some percentage of them will resist with force. Therefore, some people on both sides will get hurt or killed.

2) The confiscation will not have any significant impact on the number of deaths from criminals using guns (I include the nut jobs who do mass shootings). Indeed, that number will probably increase. The number of mass shootings of innocents will probably go up as the extremists respond.

Therefore, there will be more deaths by people using guns overall. How many more depends on the factors I mentioned. It could be a few thousand to many many more. It could be a bloodbath. It could be isolated incidents.

Conclusions:

a) The typical person on the street pushing for bans and confiscation has no clue as to what will happen.

b) Those in power that want bans and possibly confiscation (not that they don't want it, but see below), probably have calculated all of this and do not care. Their goal is not to reduce violence by criminals with guns or mass shootings. Their goal is to disarm the populace and they don't care how many people get hurt or killed as long as it isn't them, and as long as their power increases.

Many in power understand the calculus, but even if they don't, most simply do not care - they lie, they cheat, they steal. They want more power, and an armed populace threatens that power. They are playing the long game. They may not get to the point in the near future where there is confiscation, but they know that a 'ban' will result in a decrease in firearms that can be used against them and the forces they control (military and law enforcement). Bans will also result in the demonization of gun owners, and further decrease our numbers.

The 'true believers' among them - that don't understand or believe the calculus - are 'useful idiots' who will be surprised by any significant resistance, but they will just rationalize away the results as necessary and blame it solely on those who resist. This is human nature. This is the future.

Whether it happens in our lifetime or that of our children, or their children is debatable.

I don't think we are there yet because those in power behind the scenes weigh these factors and they are patient - they keep pushing a lot and accept any progress they can make. If they don't get it today, they know that tomorrow there will be some tragedy they can use to push again - eventually they will get what they want.

 

[Howard1955]

 

[shibbershabber]

Hard to say. As I replied, it will depend on the approach taken by those pushing confiscation and when (the longer they wait, the smaller the number of hold outs will be as we grow ever smaller over time).

Here are a few observations though that I think are not debatable:

1) There will be hold outs. Some percentage of them will resist with force. Therefore, some people on both sides will get hurt or killed.

2) The confiscation will not have any significant impact on the number of deaths from criminals using guns (I include the nut jobs who do mass shootings). Indeed, that number will probably increase. The number of mass shootings of innocents will probably go up as the extremists respond.

Therefore, there will be more deaths by people using guns overall. How many more depends on the factors I mentioned. It could be a few thousand to many many more. It could be a bloodbath. It could be isolated incidents.

Conclusions:

a) The typical person on the street pushing for bans and confiscation has no clue as to what will happen.

b) Those in power that want bans and possibly confiscation (not that they don't want it, but see below), probably have calculated all of this and do not care. Their goal is not to reduce violence by criminals with guns or mass shootings. Their goal is to disarm the populace and they don't care how many people get hurt or killed as long as it isn't them, and as long as their power increases.

Many in power understand the calculus, but even if they don't, most simply do not care - they lie, they cheat, they steal. They want more power, and an armed populace threatens that power. They are playing the long game. They may not get to the point in the near future where there is confiscation, but they know that a 'ban' will result in a decrease in firearms that can be used against them and the forces they control (military and law enforcement). Bans will also result in the demonization of gun owners, and further decrease our numbers.

The 'true believers' among them - that don't understand or believe the calculus - are 'useful idiots' who will be surprised by any significant resistance, but they will just rationalize away the results as necessary and blame it solely on those who resist. This is human nature. This is the future.

Whether it happens in our lifetime or that of our children, or their children is debatable.

I don't think we are there yet because those in power behind the scenes weigh these factors and they are patient - they keep pushing a lot and accept any progress they can make. If they don't get it today, they know that tomorrow there will be some tragedy they can use to push again - eventually they will get what they want.

More or less A slow and steady erosion.

Its never enough.

A slow creep from the low hanging fruit of "assault weapons" on down to your bolt action hunting rifle being banned as a sniper rifle.

As is always the case... Majority are asleep at the wheel and/or dont have the stomach for the fight.

Its a hell of a thing when your rights are subject to mob rule.

 

[Member 3687]

To answer the question I have never seen or found any numbers for such a battle.

I do have my opinion though and if they try to take them and not just ban them it will not be pretty. So let's look at some facts that some folks may have already have stated but I may add to them.

According the US census in 1860 just before the civil war the US population was 31,443,321 and approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War, just a bit under 2% of the population.

So if history repeats itself and with the current population around 329,000,000 then subtract 2% giving you a death toll of around 6,580,000.

In my opinion any ban will include all guns listed on Feinstein's gun ban list and not just AR's and AK's and the reason I say this is because whoever gets in office and has the capability to pass any of it is going to go for all of it and there will be no sunset clause as there was in the last one. So that means SKS's, M1A's, FAL's and I think Mini14's where added to her latest list along with 100's of others that look evil. Basically all simi autos.

As a gun owner you are the bad guy. Yes you are the bad guy according to the news media, Social media and every politician on the left. Its because of you, we have all these mass murders of school children because you will not give up your guns and the news media drives home that the polls show that 70 to 92% of Americans agree with them on every new gun law proposed even if it is not true.

As a member or even a past member of the NRA (or any gun pro organization) they class you as a terrorist but so far San Francisco is the only one honest enough to put it on paper.

As a gun owner you are most likely right of center therefore you're a racist, homophobe, xenophobe and you have white privilege, white or not.

I bring all this up because it will be the reason it could get ugly from day one if they pass such a law because any and all action to fight back will prove their point that you are the terrorist they have been warning the American people about for years.

To them the Constitution does not matter, just what they believe matters based on emotions and the want to disarm you and nothing more.

I agree with the folks that say they do not have to go door to door because they do not need to. The just ban them, shutdown manufactures and say turn them in and wait for you to do something stupid. If you keep them you can never shoot them, show them or pass them down to your kids or you get arrested. They just wait you out and pick us off one at a time.

So to me this leaves us with 2 options we bend over and take it just like we did with the bump stock ban and every other gun law in the name of safety for the children that has made no one any safer or we finally say enough is enough and stand our ground even if it means a civil war.

With all the new red flag laws they can take any number of posts on this forum from any of us and show cause that you are a threat to society and take your guns. We have all made comments like "come and get them" and "we will stand and fight" and according to BETO and people like him that is a threat and you should have your guns taken from you.

At this moment it sounds far fetch but will it be in a few elections down the road when there is a new president in office and a full house and senate all of the same party, the party that wants you disarmed.

People forget the constitution limits the government not us and yet we have allowed government to take our rights away with every new law passed that has done nothing to stop crime, just infringe on the law abiding.

We the people have the final say, not government officials or the Supreme Court but only if we are willing to stand our ground. They are not gods just elected officials who are supposed to represent all of us and not just the party they belong to.

Remember once the guns are gone what will you use to defend yourself from an already tyrannical government, your good looks.

I hate to tell you it has not worked so far.

 

[shibbershabber]

To answer the question I have never seen or found any numbers for such a battle.

I do have my opinion though and if they try to take them and not just ban them it will not be pretty. So let's look at some facts that some folks may have already have stated but I may add to them.

According the US census in 1860 just before the civil war the US population was 31,443,321 and approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War, just a bit under 2% of the population.

So if history repeats itself and with the current population around 329,000,000 then subtract 2% giving you a death toll of around 6,580,000.

In my opinion any ban will include all guns listed on Feinstein's gun ban list and not just AR's and AK's and the reason I say this is because whoever gets in office and has the capability to pass any of it is going to go for all of it and there will be no sunset clause as there was in the last one. So that means SKS's, M1A's, FAL's and I think Mini14's where added to her latest list along with 100's of others that look evil. Basically all simi autos.

As a gun owner you are the bad guy. Yes you are the bad guy according to the news media, Social media and every politician on the left. Its because of you, we have all these mass murders of school children because you will not give up your guns and the news media drives home that the polls show that 70 to 92% of Americans agree with them on every new gun law proposed even if it is not true.

As a member or even a past member of the NRA (or any gun pro organization) they class you as a terrorist but so far San Francisco is the only one honest enough to put it on paper.

As a gun owner you are most likely right of center therefore you're a racist, homophobe, xenophobe and you have white privilege, white or not.

I bring all this up because it will be the reason it could get ugly from day one if they pass such a law because any and all action to fight back will prove their point that you are the terrorist they have been warning the American people about for years.

To them the Constitution does not matter, just what they believe matters based on emotions and the want to disarm you and nothing more.

I agree with the folks that say they do not have to go door to door because they do not need to. The just ban them, shutdown manufactures and say turn them in and wait for you to do something stupid. If you keep them you can never shoot them, show them or pass them down to your kids or you get arrested. They just wait you out and pick us off one at a time.

So to me this leaves us with 2 options we bend over and take it just like we did with the bump stock ban and every other gun law in the name of safety for the children that has made no one any safer or we finally say enough is enough and stand our ground even if it means a civil war.

With all the new red flag laws they can take any number of posts on this forum from any of us and show cause that you are a threat to society and take your guns. We have all made comments like "come and get them" and "we will stand and fight" and according to BETO and people like him that is a threat and you should have your guns taken from you.

At this moment it sounds far fetch but will it be in a few elections down the road when there is a new president in office and a full house and senate all of the same party, the party that wants you disarmed.

People forget the constitution limits the government not us and yet we have allowed government to take our rights away with every new law passed that has done nothing to stop crime, just infringe on the law abiding.

We the people have the final say, not government officials or the Supreme Court but only if we are willing to stand our ground. They are not gods just elected officials who are supposed to represent all of us and not just the party they belong to.

Remember once the guns are gone what will you use to defend yourself from an already tyrannical government, your good looks.

I hate to tell you it has not worked so far.

We should be more organized.

An oppoistion that is not unified is no opposition at all.

There will never be a nationwide mass forced compliance or door to door confiscation.

Regardless of their tactics, we should be better prepared as a group. Even if they pass a ban, its not like theyre going to leave us alone after that..

Just like the impeachers... You think they wont go after Pence once Trump is gone?

Gun control is just one step towards total control

 

[Member 52301]

View attachment 619707

I love this post with the sign on it.

Thank you!

Cate

 

[Knebel]

maybe door to door confiscation goes something like this? Who knows?

But quite honestly, everyone will just turn in their guns or never be able to use them anymore. Except the criminals of course....

 

[tkdguy]

I'd like to see the stats on violent crime AND victimisation by RACE. I suspect that if certain minority groups are taken from the over-all statistics, the violent crime rate would drop substantially. Seems like a study touching on some of this was done recently, but I don't have it on my fingertips...

Easy to come by; go to FBI or DOJ violent crime statistics

 

[whiskeybill]

I wouldn't call this a "study", but the numbers are pretty interesting. I posted this on another thread here last week.

The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny - Gun Confiscation Fail - Rawles

The Mathematics of Countering Tyranny by James Wesley Rawles - Gun Confiscation - AR-15s. Estimates on number of guns in US.

survivalblog.com

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

If you haven't already, read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. If you have, and it's been a while, give it another read.

That's all I'm going to say.

Took your advice, download it, and just finished reading it. Great book, I couldn't stop reading, though I was pretty impatient at times and started skimming sections to get to the action. Some day I'll have to reread it and take in more of the details.

 

[Camelfilter]

Took your advice, download it, and just finished reading it. Great book, I couldn't stop reading, though I was pretty impatient at times and started skimming sections to get to the action. Some day I'll have to reread it and take in more of the details.

Yah, some is a bit slow however, we found most of even those bits extremely interesting.

Likely depends on how familiar one is allready with ballistics, firearms "culture"/legalities in general, as to skimming sections vs not. ESP the flying bits.

The overall message & tone though, EXTREMELY INTERESTING. Hopefully would never need be applied.

On our list for a re-read.

 

[cookie]

We will go out with a whimper. my guess.

 

[Heyjoe]

Speak for yourself, kindly.

 

[Dunes190203]

Older thread, no doubt some .gov entity has done resistance/casualty calculations on various confiscation scenarios for intelligence use and not for public consumption. One significant factor on both sides of the equation, versus adversarial actions we routinely prosecute on foreign shores, is loved ones on both sides would be at risk. A certain segment of the population, like myself, may have no living family members remaining but that's likely a very small segment. Most people have humans and money/assets to protect and that will factor into their decisions, both on the confiscator and confiscatee side.

I think the scenarios like PG&E's power outage are currently being fleshed out to selectively target problem (to the prog) areas and to assist the confiscators under color of law. Remember, the enemy here isn't dumb. They're some of the best and brightest big brains the prog can turn out. They're coordinated and well-funded. Formidable. Sure, they can die just as quickly as anyone else in a widespread adversarial action, only human, but the big brain part helps to keep things just off that edge, as well as provides well-reasoned scenarios of escape/protection if things go sideways.

If I had to put a number on things myself, in a widespread action, figure CW1 x10 both KIA and wounded/injured. So, six million or so KIA. Considering current estimates of 300-400 million guns in the country and some 20 million ex-military people still alive, I think that's a reasonable estimate. Sad that we've come to think about and estimate such things but that's reality. As individual humans we don't matter to the prog. We're batteries. Our lives are meaningless to them. Hard to care less than that.

 

[DONOTBUGME]

The fight for freedom would look nothing like revolutionary war due to the technological advatage the govt forces would have. The gap today would far greater than what the American revolutionaries faced vs England. It would look more like IRA vs British or the type of fighting we see in the middle east. Bombings of govt buildings, IEDs to destroy convoys and slow their supply lines, and assinations of their leadership, commanders, and financiers. Which would turn public support against the freedom fighters due to innocent people killed who are at the wrong place at the wrong time. Other countries would assist, to squash it quick so their populace wouldnt get any ideas.

If you are fighting at your door step you have already lost. Killing soilders of your opponent would be a waste of ammo. They would be another body to fill his place and would be able to train and replace thier soilders faster. The fight would have to be taken to the people commanding and financing the effort. But they would be far away from where the violence is happening in hardened secure areas.

Another thing to remember, govt will have access to all forms of communications. They will have access to all the security cameras, door bells cameras, radio waves, and now have tools to listen to conversations without needing a Mic in a room. Lets also not forget facial recognition. Then there are real time satellites used to track any involved or suspected back to there hidout or homes. There will be no pubs to meet in that would be secure enough to speak about planning operations. Marshall law would be imposed restricting movement and voting suspended so leaders would not have to worry about losing power when bodies start to pile up.

There would be undercover agents sent out in mass to locate and infiltrate the cells of freedom fighters. This would create trust issue within the ranks of the freedom fighters, and cause in fighting. It would also allow the govt to identify and silience anyone leading an effort or had the skills to organize and plan effective attacks.

The vast size of america and everything above would make it extremely difficult for the small groups to organize a large force. If a hotspot flares up in Kanasas, freedom fighters would not be able to march to their defense like they did in the revolutionary war. While govt could have troops anywhere in the country in mass in a few hours. Which England did not have the techonogly to do at that time.

The uprising would have to take place silently over decades and even generations. You would need to take over education little by little to plant the seeds. Once you are able to indoctrinate the youth of your views you will be able to gain power little by little over time. This will get your people in places of power to be able to get your message out, like the media and appointmented to govt positions. Eventually those people will rise in power and influence, allowing them to create laws that benefit your way of thinking. And then you are able to force them to accept your beliefs as true. If they dont like it, you now have superior forces to prevent them from uprising and spreading thier way of thinking.


Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The vast size of America also works against the Government. Recall that the Mil have not had to fight more than 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, and look how difficult a going it was, against an enemy who had far less tech and in a country no bigger than Texas.

Do not forget that the military absolutely need to have secure transport lines, infrastructure and so on. All of which can be easily disrupted with well placed barricades and rioters.

Remember also, support for the Fed Govt at whole is quite low, and again, remember that there are a lot of angry people who may have no problem taking the street fights to the police and govt agencies

I bet you that there are more angry veterans and families of veterans than there are troops who would follow orders to bomb, to kill, to destroy fellow Americans.

 

[tac]

The shooting of fellow Americans works in both directions. Do the angry people REALLY want to kill their fellow countrymen and women? Would the military REALLY be ready to shoot somebody wearing 'Old Betsy' on his arm?

 

[CamoDeafie]

The shooting of fellow Americans works in both directions. Do the angry people REALLY want to kill their fellow countrymen and women? Would the military REALLY be ready to shoot somebody wearing 'Old Betsy' on his arm?

If theyre police.... or vice versa, seems to be the case lately although mostly isolated cases and nothing indicative of a conspiracy or "war on police" But otherwise, Kent State, 1960s-1970s?

According to the FBI, violent crime rates were lower in 2018 than in 1970s

So personally, we are still a long way away from mass civil unrest and violence

 

[Dunes190203]

Any of our WA members remember that kid who stole a Dash 8 from SEATAC and went on a joy ride by that army base before deliberately crashing into a nearby island to off himself? IIRC, some guard jets were scrambled from PDX but it was a good 30 minutes of fun time before they arrived to watch. He was a ramper at SEA. Got any idea how many rampers there are in the US? A&P's? Anyone remember that drone the flew into the landing path of EWR over Teterboro and closed down EWR for a few hours diverting aircraft all over the area? That's just one area, one which happens to interest me, air transport.

The thing is, not even counting all the ex-military and ex-LEO's confiscation would affect, there's millions of citizens in critical infrastructure industries so don't think fire teams and bullets, think 9/11 and Oklahoma City. They're embedded into nearly everything that makes the country go. If one is the prog confiscator, think there's an enemy behind every blade of grass. There may not be, sure, but one would never know if they or their family is in the reticle, just like we citizens fear today with things like 'red flag' and similar.

The OP asked about stats on a 'complete confiscation'. That would mean door to door everywhere and, after news of the first door got out, life would get a lot harder to get to that 'complete'. Remember the 5am raid at Roger Stone's house? Imagine that was a friend's house and they were after his guns. A splash hit social media or alternate coms. What would you do?