Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Even tank drivers have to get out to take a piss or refuel, you don't need to defeat the tank if you can defeat the driver and that's how a lowly rifle or pistol in the hands of an armed citizen will trump a tank.

There's a lot more ex-military members in the US then active military. (Who are every bit as trained and skilled as our active members) They can do some serious damage if it came down to it, and almost all of them exercise their gun ownership rights in a major way. If things got that bad I think there'd also be a lot of active service men siding with the civilians, as much as we like to get into heated debates we tend to put our loyalty with our neighbors before the government. As long as we have the means to protect ourselves then we will, thankfully that's supported by the constitution.

Would I hit a bingo square if I say

"Bush/Obama Fault"?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because they would literally have to kill 80%+ of the population to do that.

Sorry, but that's an absolutely ridiculous assumption. 80% of the population might own guns, but I seriously doubt you're going to get 100% of the gun owners to support violent revolution. Remember, even the Nazis, as horrifyingly evil as they were, had widespread popular support and only limited opposition to crush. You're going to have a very hard time coming up with a plausible scenario where a government with near-universal opposition manages to get into power in the first place. The much more likely scenario is one where the oppressive government has lots of support, and only oppresses a minority of the population while most gun owners shrug and say "not my problem" because martyrdom in a doomed revolution isn't actually that appealing when it becomes more than just an idle fantasy.

A B-52 is going to be worthless in the event of a guerrilla war against insurgents in your own country.

Depends on how much collateral damage you want to inflict. If the goal is to wipe a rebelling town off the map it's a great option. Though feel free to replace the B-52 with a drone armed with hellfire missiles, and the NSA providing your cell phone records to track you and figure out what house to blow up. The exact weapon isn't important, what matters is the fact that the military has all the big guns and will have no problem killing a few untrained idiots with AR-15s.

As was pointed out earlier, there is nowhere near enough soldiers in the US army to control all the armed civilians there are in the US. Even if only a portion were involved in resistance they'd still be fighting a losing battle.

Depends on the size of the portion. If 1% of gun owners have both the ideological opposition to the government and the courage to risk their lives to fight it, while a solid majority of the rest would happily hand the traitors over to the secret police if they dare to ask for support, then the military won't have very many problems with limited numbers.

Plus, you're also ignoring the fact that the military doesn't need to control everything at once. They just need to kill anyone who openly resists (go ahead, convince your entire town to rebel and declare yourselves independent, the B-52 strike is on its way) and to escort the police as they go around enforcing whatever evil policies your hypothetical evil government wants to enforce. For example, if the government wants to confiscate all guns (the ultimate evil!) they just need to control the immediate area that they're searching, the fact that some town 500 miles away isn't cooperating at the moment isn't very relevant. Once the current confiscation is complete (and anyone who dared to resist is dead) they can move on to the next town.

You say an insurgence wouldn't work, yet it seems to be working just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan. And beat the US in Vietnam. Even the Russians couldn't beat Afghanistan, and they certainly had no qualms about collateral damage.

It only "works" because the US wasn't willing to just massacre the civilian population, take the oil, and bring in our own settlers. The resistance only won because, despite our lack of concern for who else is in the blast radius when we drone a suspected "terrorist", we weren't willing to do whatever it takes to claim Iraq and Afghanistan. We still had those moral limits, and we weren't willing to break them just for the sake of winning. Your hypothetical evil government that justifies armed revolution isn't going to be nearly as generous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Even tank drivers have to get out to take a piss or refuel, you don't need to defeat the tank if you can defeat the driver and that's how a lowly rifle or pistol in the hands of an armed citizen will trump a tank.

Assuming that the military doesn't just bulldoze a mile-wide buffer zone around every military base or fuel station and declare that anyone in that area will be shot on sight. Shooting the tank driver with your rifle assumes that you aren't dead before you can get within rifle range. And of course it also assumes that it's a tank, not an armed drone flying 10,000' overhead while being controlled from a loyal part of the country.

Whoa. We're losing the war in Afghanistan?!?

 Grey Templar wrote:
An armed populace keeps the politicians scared.

Nope. Vote keeps the politicians scared.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That ultimate power rests with the people.

Yeah, I am pretty sure you will do very well against special forces. Or tanks. Or carpet bombing. Or maybe combat gas. Or… well, the possibility to kill you and your puny gun are endless for some fascist overlord, really.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The power behind that vote is a .45 in one hand and a Molotov in the other.

So, do you mean that were people do not have .45 or Molotov, they have no power and are not living in a democracy?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The Civil War would qualify as armed civilians "specifically resisting the Government of the USA".

Was it not the confederate against the union? Like, two governments facing each other? With armies, training, chain of commands, all that stuff?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Other than that, just because Americans have never since been in open, armed conflict with their own government doesn't mean they haven't needed their firearms against invading Foreign powers.

Which is something completely different, which is now taken care of by the army.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because they would literally have to kill 80%+ of the population to do that.

Are you serious? Do you actually believe people will all choose death over oppression and fight to the last men? Yeah, the army is not the best placed to suppress dissent. Your hypothetical fascist government will therefore use SS/pasdaran/death squads-type militia/police forces for the job. Terror tactics. Massive surveillance of the population. That kind of stuff.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Would private gun ownership stop it once it started? No.

Would it help end it and provide one heck of a deterrent? Hell yes.

How would it help end it exactly, and why would it act as a deterrent? You do not need mob with guns to execute a dictator after he has been overthrown. The fascist government would have no problem disarming people once it has reached power, and has no mean of reaching power without either massive popular support (in which case guns will help them) or a military coup (in which case they outgun people by a thousand time, and no, people will not jump gladly to their death.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:


I wish we did.

In Ohio you have to take 8 hours of classroom training, apply for your license, get fingerprinted, have your fingerprints run through AFIS, and then typically wait 2-3 months to get it (I've seen shorter, I've seen longer).

That's what I was implying earlier: that not all states are "get it and go."

That is awesome, I wish it was the case here.

The Veity Cong was one of the most ineffective insurgencies in history. Their reputation is a myth created by the American Media who regularly attributed to them actions for the North Veitnamese Army.

I laught at your pulled from your hat number btw. Even the American Revoltion didn't have that kind of support. You think they won because they had guns? They won because they were 3000 miles from the government that could crush them otherwise, an advantage that didn't even help others. India and China had guns and numbers and they still got stomped. Seems you're view of the issue is rather shallow.

 Jihadin wrote:
Whoa. We're losing the war in Afghanistan?!?

Apparently, you are. I am expecting to see an Afghan flagged raised at the White House any minutes now.

One can easily argue we've lost the war in Afghanistan in the sense that our long term goals there have likely failed. Losing a war doesn't mean you got conquered by a foreign power.

Another way to look at it would be to ask 'what exactly does your government have to do for a popular revolution to break out? Enslave people? Torture people? Experiment on them? Start illegal wars? Suspend habeas corpus?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that stuff has already happened and there has been no uprising. It's never gonna happen, guys.

If there's a revoltion in the US, all current indicators say it won't be because the government is tyranical. It'll be a class war. And even that idea is far fetched.

Man, I didn't know the war of 1812 started with Britain invading America.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Man, I didn't know the war of 1812 started with Britain invading America.

We don't like to talk about it because Andrew Jackson was the only guy who did well and he was kind of a prick

Waow this thread went from a Macho psycho nut killer to Macho against feminism to yet another Gun debacle conversation.

A good dictator would kidnap your loved ones and disembowel them on national TV to make a point, A terrorist Attack randomly choose an Elementary school to let the Dictators henchmen have some fun, Death squads at night also work good. Make the opposition disappear, And thanks to the internet, we know who you are! No one is safe!

 Peregrine wrote:
And how exactly is private gun ownership in the US going to change anything if that happens here? Any government that is legitimately evil enough to justify violent revolution is unlikely to show any reluctance to crush the revolution with overwhelming firepower. It might be fun to lovingly stroke your AR-15 and fantasize about leading a revolution, but your gun isn't going to do anything to stop a tank or B-52 strike. And if the military supports the revolution then a few untrained civilians with fancy toys are completely redundant, and at absolute most your contribution to the revolution will consist of sitting around guarding something worthless (just to keep you out of the way) while the military does all the real work.

So the US military would just bomb its own cities and cripple its own infrastructure? So what would prevent other nation around the world from destablizing regions and expanding their territory?

Agian for people who didn't scroll back the US only has 200,000 combat troops in the US, split equally between the states that 4,000 troops Per state.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step.

My wife's mother, a few years back, started to have a serious of incidents where she would randomly start screaming at people, and wander around in public lost and agitated. She lived alone, and when it was clear she was a danger to herself, we tried having her committed temporarily for a psychiatric evaluation since we presumed this was incipient schizophrenia, of which there is a family history.

Turns out, it's incredibly hard to have someone committed against their will in this country* (as it probably should be) no matter how clearly they are delusional or outwardly... well, nutso acting. It's pretty heartbreaking to be on the other end of this, when you're impotent to help someone who will not allow themselves to be helped.


*Eventually she got into a screaming match with a cop, and then boom, psychiatric hold and then subsequent treatment.

Thanks for the story. And it's exactly what I was getting at - the restrictions on institutionalising someone are strict as they well should be, but it does leave a pretty problematic grey area where loved ones can see what it happening but can't get much meaningful help from the law until the person actually breaks a law.

I dont' really know how to solve the issue, or if it can be solved.

 Ninjacommando wrote:


So the US military would just bomb its own cities and cripple its own infrastructure? So what would prevent other nation around the world from destablizing regions and expanding their territory?

Even tyrannies derive power from popular support. Especially if the theory is that a democracy is going to become a tyranny, it needs the popular support to enter that state to begin with. See Nazi Germany as an example. That regime took power violently, that only became possible for them because they enjoyed the support of a large segment of the population.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Europe will eventually again be crushed under the boot of a dictator. It may be a hundred years off, but it will happen eventually. And you will lament that you didn't see it coming, and couldn't stop it with a vote at the polls.

The ultimate folly is thinking your society is incapable of crumbling and falling to a dictatorship.

Actually, the ultimate folly is thinking having some guns can stop it happening. The Germans had guns, and contrary to the lies sold by the gun lobby Hitler expanded gun rights (except for the Jews). In Saddam's Iraq people could own assault rifles if they wanted.

A dictatorship that enforces its will through power alone is moments from collapse. Instead a dictatorship survives like any government - by doing enough for enough people (or at the very least making promises about doing enough down the track), that armed resistance doesn’t happen.

The plain and simple reality is that dictatorships flourish because enough of the people, enough of the people with guns, happen to support the dictator.

The idea that it can’t happen in America because you own guns is a fantasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe you can hug them into agreeing with you.

Yeah, I know, totally insane. I mean, imagine if they just went up and put flowers in the rifles, flower power would get totally slaughtered.

Oh, except it actually happened, and worked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Can you please provide some instances for peaceful revolution on a national level?

The Velvet Revolution. The Carnation Revolution.

Have to think though before one throws US Troops into a situation involving the populace of the United States.
Lawful Orders to Unlawful Orders. We had this thread though quite awhile back.

BTW I endorse going off topic on the original intent of this thread because we are not propping him up in stature anymore be it good or ill.

The weird thing is that all conversations in real life eventually go off topic. Why people get so annoyed by it makes me wonder if they've ever talked to someone else for more than 15 minutes.

 LordofHats wrote:
The weird thing is that all conversations in real life eventually go off topic. Why people get so annoyed by it makes me wonder if they've ever talked to someone else for more than 15 minutes.

Yea, all the time, but on a forum, you can control that, slightly more. When you just talk with friends, you just go from topic to topic because of the excitement/interest. Whatever that is...

 stanman wrote:
Guns get a lot of media hype over a fairly small number of related deaths, cars, alcohol, drugs and even cigarettes kill far more people on a daily basis but we don't have news articles lam blasting them at every opportunity.

Are you seriously unaware of the movement to restrict and even ban cigarettes? The drive towards more restrictive alcohol laws? The constant revision and analysis of driving road rules?

Also, 10,000 deaths a year is a big number when other countries with stricter gun laws (and very little gun culture) have homicide numbers per capita a quarter of yours, meaning if your numbers were similar you'd have 2,500 deaths a year. Compare that to, say, driving, where if you had deaths on the roads of four times other countries, you can guarantee you'd accept that what you were doing wasn't working and you'd change. Now, that said there is a point where clearly we accept deaths as a consequence of living our lives - we can't wrap everything in safety foam and never, ever do a dangerous thing ever again. And when alcohol kills 80,000 and people are willing to accept that number as the cost of getting drunk and having a good time when we want, there's an argument that gun deaths are worth the price of going shooting when we please.

But that's a debate that you actually have to have in good faith, and with the basic things I outlined above accepted by all parties. The problem is that right now you aren't even close to that debate, in part because the anti-gun movement runs straight past that debate with emotive nonsense and lurches straight in to writing bad law, while the pro-gun movement avoids that debate entirely with what could be described, at best, as disingenuous bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because they would literally have to kill 80%+ of the population to do that.

And if you have 80% of the population resisting, then the wheels fall off that government without ever needing to resort to violence. If 80% of the population simply decide to no longer support government and step back from the economy, you get overnight collapse simple as that.

The reality of political resistance is that your 80% number is total nonsense. People have this idea that because a government looks very bad to us here today, decades and thousands of miles from where it actually happened, then it must have been hated by the people in the country. But the reality is that even governments that do despicable things retain support (taking people in the middle of the night is accepted because it is the other side of politics who are taken, for instance). There was a core of the population that supported Pol Pot, for heaven's sake.

And that support only has to be a modest number, because most people will choose to remain completely outside of politics, just keep on working and looking after their own families. Once people commit to being part of the resistance, well then getting your hands on guns is the easy bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They don't have to have won to show its effectiveness.

Insurgents just need to outlast their opponents, or kill them all.

That's the dynamic for a foreign invader, not a domestic government. Explain exactly how the government is 'outlasted' by the resistance? Eventually the government just gives up, and says losing a handful of soldiers every month is no longer worth it, and so it will no longer be a tyrannical dictatorship, and call for elections.

The dynamic in an internal resistance is quite different, because government, especially a genuinely oppressive one, isn't going to just give up one day and call the troops home. I mean, look at the resistance movements going on in Indonesia, or across half of South America. Those things have gone on since the 50s in some cases, and at no point was there even the slightest suggestion of just giving in to the resistance and calling the troops home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember, even the Nazis, as horrifyingly evil as they were, had widespread popular support and only limited opposition to crush.

I read an interesting piece recently about the surprising lack of war mobilisation in Germany. It wasn't until 1943 that Germany was even close to fully mobilised (after the US, incredibly). Despite being scary, ruthless bastards, the Nazis never had the free reign over Germany that we often assume, and in fact they were like any government - dependent on a having the support of a significant portion of the population. The Nazis retained much of that support by delivering on their promises of easy military victories, and this made it difficult to enforce the rationing and reallocation of resources that total war mobilisation required. It was only once there was simply no choice but total mobilisation to fight the Red Army, and all effective resistance in Germany had been utterly crushed that finally moved to total mobilisation (Speer's miracle was actually just the Nazis doing what everyone did as soon as they were engaged in fighting).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Seems you're view of the issue is rather shallow.

It's interesting how people who attach a great deal of significance to the possibility of armed revolution seemed to have spent so little time studying real world revolutions.

I suspect this is because they have almost zero interest in actual revolution, and a lot of interest in playing a fantasy game in which their gun makes them as awesome as the revolutionary figures in their heads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The weird thing is that all conversations in real life eventually go off topic. Why people get so annoyed by it makes me wonder if they've ever talked to someone else for more than 15 minutes.

Exactly. Everytime I hear someone complain about going off topic I wonder 'isn't that how conversations are supposed to work?'

 sebster wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Guns get a lot of media hype over a fairly small number of related deaths, cars, alcohol, drugs and even cigarettes kill far more people on a daily basis but we don't have news articles lam blasting them at every opportunity.

Are you seriously unaware of the movement to restrict and even ban cigarettes? The drive towards more restrictive alcohol laws? The constant revision and analysis of driving road rules?

Sure there's some pushes to change some of those, but it's not media headlines or considered sensational news. You might hear about a fatal accident on the news if it shut down the highway during rush hour or killed a whole family, but if those are mentioned it's almost done in passing not as focus of news specials or TV discussions. When a fatal accident happens you get a mention of death count and then it's onto other news, a shooting happens and they run the stories non-stop all day and night as it's sensational. I can't think of the last time I heard a story about "average joe dies of lung cancer", it's sad but it doesn't get people emotionally charged like a shooting does, much less a mass shooting.

Unless it involves a bus load of kids dying to a drunk driver you don't have the president of the US talking about car accidents in a white house address, but it happens for shootings. (and not just mass shootings) Car accidents kill tens of thousands more people every year then guns yet where are all the people clamoring against car ownership and higher standards for driver's licenses? People tend to shrug off auto accidents as for some reason they aren't as dramatic and emotional.

There's maybe 2-3 shark attacks a year (not all of which are fatal) and yet reports of those attacks will hit every news channel for days, cows kill several hundred people a year and it's never on the news as it's a dull story. The media picks and chooses based on what tugs at people's heartstrings.

At a basic level, if a man needs a woman, or feels he needs a woman or women to validate his existence by providing him affections of whatever sort, like this piece of gak, he should have done everyone a favor and pulled his lower lip over his head and swallowed hard (Grumpy Old Men). If you (general you) have such low self esteem that you need other people to validate who you are or where you are at or fit into the universe you need to rethink how you are doing things.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
So the US military would just bomb its own cities and cripple its own infrastructure?

Sure, if it's necessary to set an example. Let's say the tinfoil hat crowd is right, and a bunch of untrained, out of shape civilians with AR-15s manage to "liberate" a town and declare that they are no longer subject to the laws of the evil government. Oops, said evil government just bombed the town off the map. Anyone else want to try declaring their independence?

So what would prevent other nation around the world from destablizing regions and expanding their territory?

The threat of nuclear retaliation if anyone seriously threatens the US.

Agian for people who didn't scroll back the US only has 200,000 combat troops in the US, split equally between the states that 4,000 troops Per state.

That would be a relevant thing to talk about if this was a revolution against the real US government, rather than one against a hypothetical future US government that has become evil enough to justify a revolution (PS: the current one isn't). In that situation we can expect to have a lot more troops within the US, on top of the national guard, secret police, loyal militia groups, etc.

 stanman wrote:
When a fatal accident happens you get a mention of death count and then it's onto other news, a shooting happens and they run the stories non-stop all day and night as it's sensational.

Only if it's a dramatic mass shooting, or something else especially attention-grabbing like the guy who killed someone in "self defense" for being too loud in a movie. If one person gets shot robbing a store it's going to be a minor story on the local news that night, and then it's going to be forgotten. The only shootings that get any real attention are the equivalent of the busload of kids dying to a drunk driver.

PS: remember the Zimmerman thing, one of those cases where the president made a big deal about it? Nobody had heard about it until long after it happened, when people started to get outraged about the local government's handling of the case. If they had filed charges against him and had even a token trial instead of just reflexively dismissing it as self defense the president probably wouldn't even have been aware that anything happened.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
So the US military would just bomb its own cities and cripple its own infrastructure?

Sure, if it's necessary to set an example. Let's say the tinfoil hat crowd is right, and a bunch of untrained, out of shape civilians with AR-15s manage to "liberate" a town and declare that they are no longer subject to the laws of the evil government. Oops, said evil government just bombed the town off the map. Anyone else want to try declaring their independence?

No, what they're going to do is kill the government troops and then fade back into the landscape or general populace like real insurgents do. Not something stupid like painting a target on themselves.

Rinse and repeat. The government will lose eventually. Such a coup wouldn't be popular with a large chunk of the populace, and if they took any real effective measures(like bombing cities and towns off the map) they'll quickly lose any support they may have had.

Which means the ranks of the insurgents will grow, as long as they don't alienate the populace either.

This is even if there was a greatly expanded military(tougher to control your own troops)


Stop saying insurgents couldn't win. Its simply not true, we've seen countless examples of insurgencies winning or at least fighting to a stalemate(which favors the insurgents)

And no government is going to be stupid enough to eradicate their own population, which is what you'd have to do in this event. In which case you've just opted for mutual annihilation and are simply committing suicide out of spite.

You would literally have to eradicate every civilian to be sure you stopped them, and that would never happen.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Stop saying insurgents couldn't win. Its simply not true, we've seen countless examples of insurgencies winning or at least fighting to a stalemate(which favors the insurgents)

You're examples suck, so yeah. We're going to keep pointing out how wrong you are. Countless revolutions and insurgencies have failed, and most of them were probably better armed than you and your shooting buddies.

You would literally have to eradicate every civilian to be sure you stopped them, and that would never happen.

And you just keep living in that little pretend world where everyone thinks exactly like you do and the masses will rise up and tell you how right you were all along and thank you for showing them the error of their ways oh great master. It's pretty much the only world where you're fantasy doesn't end in failure. There's never, in the history of the human race, been a revolution so widespread that the only way to end it was too kill everyone.

Overall Peregrine due to budget cuts and what not Its cheaper to drone strike the "Leaders" of the domestic "Rebels" in the town. Two Armament "Joe's" load a couple Hellfire, operating cost of the drone, crew chief time and maintenance to throw in, lubricants, fuel, drone pilot, usage of electricity to run the operating center. Couple CIA/FBI/WH rep to verify the "target" from a Kill List. To give a general idea.

Compare

Load crew for a F series attack aircraft, multiple ordinance that needs to be loaded for those target of opportunity, ammo for main gun, experience pilot with pro rated flight pay, also there be two aircrafts since they fly in pairs, Air Traffic Controllers, maintenance team, and a crap load of parts.

Its cheaper slamming a Hellfire through a crapper window and blowing out a building compare to blowing up a town and road ways, power lines, water mains, cable, gas lines (natural), sewer lines, cable TV lines, and whatever else

Edit

We serious on going down the road of US Citizens vs US Military Insurgency?

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, what they're going to do is kill the government troops and then fade back into the landscape or general populace like real insurgents do. Not something stupid like painting a target on themselves.

Ok, so your insurgents fade back into the general population, and the government bombs the whole town off the map and says "anyone else supporting the traitors gets the same fate". Good luck having any support left.

And of course you're once again assuming that your revolution is popular enough to have that support, instead of your insurgents getting handed over to the secret police as soon as they start talking about getting some guns and fighting back. Just how exactly did this evil government get into power in the first place if nobody supports them?

Such a coup wouldn't be popular with a large chunk of the populace, and if they took any real effective measures(like bombing cities and towns off the map) they'll quickly lose any support they may have had.

The government doesn't need support, it needs obedience. An evil government doesn't particularly care if you hand the rebels over to the secret police out of loyalty to the rightful government, or simply because you're terrified of being murdered if anyone finds out that you gave assistance to traitors.

Stop saying insurgents couldn't win. Its simply not true, we've seen countless examples of insurgencies winning or at least fighting to a stalemate(which favors the insurgents)

We've only seen that happen when they were fighting against an opponent that had moral limits on what they were willing to do to stop the rebellion. And in cases like Vietnam or Iraq there's also the important factor of the insurgents fighting against an occupying power with limited incentive to be there in the first place, so making them get tired of the whole mess and give up is a viable strategy. The hypothetical government that justifies violent revolution isn't going to have either of those things. They aren't going to be reluctant to use any means necessary to win, and they don't have any option to just leave and stop wasting resources on a fight they had questionable justification for being in at all.

And no government is going to be stupid enough to eradicate their own population, which is what you'd have to do in this event.

Except you're once again assuming that the entire population is magically united in opposing the government. More realistically there are probably going to be a lot of people who like the government, and celebrate every time a town of traitors is punished for their offenses.

In which case you've just opted for mutual annihilation and are simply committing suicide out of spite.

So I guess that means that the best possible solution for the random guys with AR-15s is that they succeed well enough that the evil government decides that if they're going to be kicked out of power (and probably killed) that they might as well kill everyone who opposed them?

 stanman wrote:
Sure there's some pushes to change some of those, but it's not media headlines or considered sensational news.

I have absolutely no idea why the complaint would be just about media coverage, and not .

You also ignored the rest of my answer, that explained in detail why just picking out the death stats for different things was shallow and didn't address the issue in any reality. And after you asked about non-violent revolution, you ignored the first person's answer by talking about a technicality in one case, and then ignored my answer entirely.

So I'm not really sure at this point what you're trying to achieve here.

There's maybe 2-3 shark attacks a year (not all of which are fatal) and yet reports of those attacks will hit every news channel for days, cows kill several hundred people a year and it's never on the news as it's a dull story.

Yeah, the media picks and chooses. No denying that. Not really anything to do with anything, though.