So you can say I am a numbers guy

[Member 3687]

So you can say I am a numbers guy. I look at the numbers to see if the data matches what people say. So when I seen folks ask if we fought back on the gun grab push would we have a chance against the military and law enforcement?

My disclaimer: First I do not promote violence or want to see or promote a civil war. The numbers I have found are averages based on several web sites with the most current data I could find.

So let’s start with the military and law enforcement:

Average military troops 2,315,958 active and reserve combined.

Average law enforcement 800,000 state, local and federal combined.

Total 3,115,958

So for safety sake let’s add 10% to this amount for possible errors. Even though a lot of cities are cutting back on law enforcement personal due to lack of funds. Also remember this is total number but at any one time more than 1/3rd of are troops are stationed overseas.

Total plus 10% equals 3,427,553

So we have 3.5 (rounded up) million military and law enforcement currently serving.

So let’s look at gun owners:

They say that 32% to 45% of households currently have firearms. No one knows for sure the real number so we will use 32% just to see how it plays out. So how many households are there in the US?

2010 data shows 132,312,404 households and I feel this is a good number as housing did not grow much in 2011 or 12. So 32% of 132,312,404 equal 42,339,969 homes with firearms. I think this is low but I will go with it.

They say there are 300 million guns in the US (I cannot verify) but by this data that would put 7 guns in each of the 42,339,969 homes. I like numbers so say there are only 200 million and not 300 million like they say that would still put 4 firearms in each of the households.

So let us say that the ban goes through and you need to turn in your firearms. Say that 90 percent comply with this order leaving 10% who become felons. This is still 4,233,996 homes with an average of 4 (lower number 7 is the higher number) firearms each. This still leaves 16,935,984 (at 4 per household) firearms not in the system and 4,233,996 owners who have nothing to lose as they are all ready felons for non compliance. They also say the average household is 2.6 people so there may be mutable members in the household in non compliance meaning more people than households so the number is could be much higher.

So even if all of the 3.5 million law enforcement and military where stationed in the US there would still be 733,996 more gun toting felons than law enforcement and military, and remember not all military and law enforcement will comply as well.

Many of these new non compliant felons are prior military and have training and swore to uphold the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.

Now in just the last year 19.6 million background checks where done and even if you take away 10% for denies it would still leave 17.64 million new purchases and many had bought more than one firearm per background check so in reality this number is also higher.

So would gun owner have a chance, I feel the answer is yes as we have seen in Afghanistan guys on camels living in the mountains kick the butts of Russia and is doing a good job of slapping down the US. No disrespect for our troops as by design IMO we are not there to win and our enemy is willing to fight and die for what they believe in, the question is are Americans?

These numbers are based on 32% households having firearms and 90% compliance. If only 80% complied the firearm owners would out number military and law enforcement by 2 to 1.

This is just food for thought. Let me know if you see anything I am forgetting.

Thanks

US Data
<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[trainsktg]

Foreign troops would have no problem fighting US citizens.

Regarding foreigh invasion however, both Japan in WWII and the Soviet Union before its collapse determined that a ground invasion of the US would be infeasible because of the number of firearms in civilian hands.

Keith

 

[mosinguy1]

My only question is exactly how many of our troops would raise arms against another american citizen in a 2a type of event????

 

[civilian75]

Kind of digressing here a bit, but, I must say something about "Red Dawn" third installment. First time, it made a lot of sense, but the second and third, are a bit of a stretch. Granted, this is Hollywood entertainment. Today, I think the most realistic scenario would be a "Blue Dawn", (UN soldiers blue hats) after an attempt to disarm our society. Whatdayathink? I bet Hollywood would balk at such a story line.

 

[mosinguy1]

Hollwood would be sayin there is no way!!!!! Yet that is so more likely!!!!!

 

[Kimber Custom]

I know several people who have felonies from a troubled youth who are unable to own firearms that would join in the fight for liberty if push really came to shove. No clue what the numbers are but it is a demographic that's not represented in your stats.

 

[aksu747]

Kind of digressing here a bit, but, I must say something about "Red Dawn" third installment. First time, it made a lot of sense, but the second and third, are a bit of a stretch. Granted, this is Hollywood entertainment. Today, I think the most realistic scenario would be a "Blue Dawn", (UN soldiers blue hats) after an attempt to disarm our society. Whatdayathink? I bet Hollywood would balk at such a story line.

If it comes to that I will be ready to fight for our rights.

 

[speeddemon94]

I know several people who have felonies from a troubled youth who are unable to own firearms that would join in the fight for liberty if push really came to shove. No clue what the numbers are but it is a demographic that's not represented in your stats.

This, exactly.

 

[Callidus98]

For the numbers to really mean something there has to be solidarity. If UN troops (or any other group of willing 'enforcers') can come in an raid one house and spin it to look like the victim was a radical or lunatic, they will chip away at our numbers a little at a time. We have to present a unified front. And that can be done long before push comes to shove and maybe we can avoid the fight by simply being willing to stand together and fight for our rights.

 

[I-Shoot]

There are a lot of problems with spreading those numbers so evenly. Mostly, the idea that the 10% of households that would not be willing turn in their weapons, each had four weapons and four occupants willing and able to use them. More likely 9% would hide some guns and turn in others to try and avoid a confrontation, and I would guess about 1% - if that - would actually stand their ground and be willing to put their lives on the line against unlikely odds (see below).

Secondly, unless there is some sort of communication, strategy, leadership, and training in place, you don't have 4 million home-grown soldiers, you'll just have chaos. You have aunt Betty with a shotgun, and 12 year old Bobby with his .22 (of the 300 million guns, how many are semi-auto rifles?) Without those numbers working as a trained unit, they are nearly meaningless.

If there were a mandatory gun turn-in (of guns defines as "assault weapons"), I believe that 80% would comply with it completely, and another 18% would probably at least participate for appearances (as I said before, handing in some guns and hiding others), and then very slowly and methodically SWAT teams (under the banner of Homeland Security) all across the country would take down one house a night of those who did not comply. Since those who did not comply would most likely not be your "average" family with their four guns, but would be people who have actually thought about these outcomes, there would be some houses that would probably take a few hours to empty -- but they would simply burn the house down if need be. It would not take long to paint black over the standard army colors of a tank (or other armored vehicles), and then put "Homeland Security" on the side.

With the apparent almost unanimous "support" (98% participation), the media will claim it was a huge success and that 98% of Americans supported the action. The remaining 2% will be utterly vilified as crazy radical terrorist wacko's, and the vast majority of the population will look the other way as the SWAT teams dispose of them.

Just MHO, if push came to shove. But things are much more complicated than this, of course.

 

[jbett98]

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door

and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years

before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you

that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder

and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells

you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years,"

he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead

story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find

an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up,

then the international media.

The surviving burglar
has become a folk hero.



Your attorney says the thief is preparing

to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack

of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege

that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced,

as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at

the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you

as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted

and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few
months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.


Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors
had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection
trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

 

[aksu747]

There are a lot of problems with spreading those numbers so evenly. Mostly, the idea that the 10% of households that would not be willing turn in their weapons, each had four weapons and four occupants willing and able to use them. More likely 9% would hide some guns and turn in others to try and avoid a confrontation, and I would guess about 1% - if that - would actually stand their ground and be willing to put their lives on the line against unlikely odds (see below).

Secondly, unless there is some sort of communication, strategy, leadership, and training in place, you don't have 4 million home-grown soldiers, you'll just have chaos. You have aunt Betty with a shotgun, and 12 year old Bobby with his .22 (of the 300 million guns, how many are semi-auto rifles?) Without those numbers working as a trained unit, they are nearly meaningless.

If there were a mandatory gun turn-in, I believe that 80% would comply with it completely, and another 18% would probably at least participate for appearances (as I said before, handing in some guns and hiding others), and then very slowly and methodically SWAT teams (under the banner of Homeland Security) all across the country would take down one house a night of those who did not comply. Since those who did not comply would most likely not be your "average" family with their four guns, but would be people who have actually thought about these outcomes, there would be some houses that would probably take a few hours to empty -- but they would simply burn the house down if need be. It would not take long to paint black over the standard army colors of a tank (or other armored vehicles), and then put "Homeland Security" on the side.

With the apparent almost unanimous "support" (98% participation), the media will claim it was a huge success and that 98% of Americans supported the action. The remaining 2% will be utterly vilified as crazy radical terrorist wacko's, and the vast majority of the population will look the other way as the SWAT teams dispose of them.

Just MHO, if push came to shove. But things are much more complicated that this, of course.

IMO you underestimate your fellow gun owners,me,my friends, and family already have plans of how we will fight back,not to mention all of the schematics to make smgs and bombs with parts bought at a hardware store that I have downloaded and stored on a flash drive.
When push comes to shove we will topple the government or anyone else who tries to take our rights away.

 

[Member 3687]

Yes I agree it would take a few leaders to accomplishment what we believe in and I also agree just the banning of so called assault weapons might not be the trigger but folks are getting to the breaking point.

Callidus98
For the numbers to really mean something there has to be solidarity. If UN troops (or any other group of willing 'enforcers') can come in an raid one house and spin it to look like the victim was a radical or lunatic, they will chip away at our numbers a little at a time. We have to present a unified front. And that can be done long before push comes to shove and maybe we can avoid the fight by simply being willing to stand together and fight for our rights.

I agree with this completely just look at history and you can see it over and over again. Especially when the government sways the media and keeps pushing the agenda and not really providing the facts.

I have been reading both sides of the issue for a week now and do not see a compromise. They want to ban them all and I want to keep what I have and get some of the ones I once could get back.

So finding a middle ground means I have to loose some thing and they gain what I lost towards their goal of a total ban then later down the road they will push for more and I will loose more.

I am tired of loosing.

 

[hermannr]

First I think the number of people that would actually turn in their firearms (given proper compensation as required by the 5A) would not come close to 90%. Look at the success rate of the Canadian Long Gun REGISTRATION...whole provinces failed to comply.

Second, I also believe a LOT (maybe even over 50%) of LE would not even attempt to enforce this kind of gun grab.

Third, you are not counting the guns in the hands of those that are already criminals

 

[Fisher Bill]

I like Science Fiction myself and can't get enough of a good conspiracy theory so I'm probably totally in left field and please pardon the hijack but what if our guns are of no consequence to an enemy or a misguided government?

Imagine if there are such weapons like ray guns from the Sci Fy movies, like they could point a ray gun at you and you'd evaporate or have your guts cooked inside you?

Impossible?

<broken link removed>


A directed-energy weapon (DEW) emits energy in an aimed direction without the means of a projectile. It transfers energy to a target for a desired effect. Intended effects may be non-lethal or lethal. Some such weapons are real, or are under active research and development.

There may be more ways to smoke out people than we realize and again, sorry for the indulgent hijack but know the OP likes numbers and technology could possibly change the odds.

I have little trust in authority and I have to admit it could be possible to rendor large areas with out power stopping all transportation, communication and the rest of the usual electronic gadgets unless you've got a good stock pile in a Faraday cage.

We've had microwaves in our homes for over 40 years so what's to say that technology now couldn't produce something that can cook out whole neighborhoods?

I probably watched too much Twilight Zone when I was a kid or call me paranoid, like I said I have little trust in what we're told or what we think we know for sure.



directed energy weapons navy test - YouTube

EMP Pt 2 - YouTube!

Russian / Soviet Point Defence Weapons

Directed Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube

Directed Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 2 of 3) - YouTube

Directed Energy Weapons used in Iraq (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube


Bill