The twitter user is making so many assumptions. It's a great look into the delusional mind of alt right people.
For example, they assume all of the gun owners are conservatives and that they are all willing to fight and die for texas, and have the means or money to get there. In actuality, plenty of gun owners aren't extremists or even right wing, and many of those who are probably won't even show up if this shit happens.
Also, if this shit happens, once those who did show up end up in prison, on the run, or dead, you can bet your ass that the same account will be calling it a false flag operation or something [not sure if it was this account or one of the other major right wing twitter accounts that encouraged January 6th and then went on to claim it was a false flag afterwards]
To sum up the right wing lunatic mind: everybody who owns guns agrees with me and would die for those opinions, but also, if we lose, it was a false flag anyway, and most people actually agree with us but are too scared to show it, etc.
It's just a bunch of hypocrisy and assumptions that go against all facts.
Not American, but isn't it also a misconception that most Americans have guns? I thought some Americans have a lot of guns, but most don't have a gun at all.
I assume Texas is Texas, but I doubt it's that different.
This is true. There are a lot of guns, but a good chunk of gun owners own more than one firearm so the "average" is skewed. Look at the ones that have massive collections or the preppers for instance. Some owner collections have dozens or even hundreds of firearms.
There's also the clear assumption the OP photo makes that all of those owners are conservative and willing to fight for Texas. I have quite a few friends with firearms, on both sides of the aisle. In fact, most of the gun owners I know personally are Democrats. None of them would ever do anything to help Texas.
You are basically spot on.
I am a gun owner with more than 5 guns locked away in my basement safe. One of those "these people need protection when escorted to the health clinic because the right wing nut jobs are trying to block access and the pigs won't do anything about it because some of them joined" kind of people, who will happily use every ounce of legal force I can bear to ensure they aren't stopped by mouth breathers who don't understand that they don't have any rights over a woman's body.
Of the people I know well enough to know their gun owning status, I'd say less than half own guns. But the half that do almost all own more than one. Mostly in .22LR (small caliber) for "plinking" (shooting small objects/targets for fun at a range or range-like area of your property) but most of the ones that aren't are for hunting. Maybe 5 or 6 people have an ar-15, and the ones I've seen are set up for medium range target shooting.
Now I am certainly biased in who I know, because I do not willingly associate with "peppers" (it's always guns and cans of beans in a basement, never anything else) or right wing assholes. None of the people I associate with would even strike you as gun owners, because they don't look the part, don't drive lifted pickups, don't wear oakleys/aviators backwards with a punisher skill thin blue line shirt and camo cargo shorts on. (generalization but you know the type)
They're very much the "those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable" kind of people.
Now from my younger years, being hauled in to church every week, I'd say it still holds true for that area at that time, under 50% but they own multiples.
So it's less "everyone owns tons of guns" and more "the under half that own guns own more than 2" I guess.
Yep, it's much more common than other countries, but gun owners are still in the minority of people, and of the gun owners, many of them only own a pistol (for self defense) or a hunting rifle for hunting, with owning just one pistol being by far the most common.
And like you said, some Americans own a LOT of guns. Those people tend to view guns as something to collect, or as a status symbol, some even have dozens of different guns they never even use or maintain, but just hoard. They tend to skew the average number to be higher.
I mean, some Americans have RPGs and historical cannons and swords and bows instead of guns
Yup, Pew Research says that only 32% of Americans own a gun.
I left guns behind along with my childhood.
Depends on the area.
Rural means guns to deal with vermin or wildlife.
Urban poor means illegal guns in bulk.
Urban middle-class, if there still is one, means self-defense as desired.
Urban high class means private security, personal gun optional.Then you have your gangs, cartels, cults, communes, independent secessionists, hobby hunters, gun lovers and political party zealots - in no particular order or affiliation.
Mix in some mass media fear mongering and everyone is suddenly armed to the teeth, willingly or not.
So to answer your question, I have no idea.
I’m pretty confident there’s not many Americans willing to sacrifice themselves for their respective political party lol. Who’s chomping at the bit to take a bullet for Cruz or Menendez?
Liberal gun owner here not from Texas . Howdily Doodily ho neighbor
Socialist gun owner checking in. Nice to meet you, stupid sexy Flanders.
Ah yes, because every single gun owner in the United States wants Texas to secede and is willing to die fighting for that cause.
That's not even true of most of the ones in Texas.
Gun owner here.
yes
no
Fuck Texas. Let them break away and rot. Their entire society would collapse of they didn't have the federal government to blame for every problem in their shithole state
If Texas secedes from the Union, the Republicans will never win another presidential election.
I own a gun.
Fuck Texas. I won’t be supporting them in anything ever.
Yeah, I'm a gun owner and am pretty "on board" with democracy so I'm not gonna help those hypothetical traitors secede.
Sign me up for the pro gun anti sedition group.
Everyone seems to have this romantic idea of a US Civil War would be like. It's either "76 million gun owners becoming patriots" or the US military will crush the secessionists with some airstrikes and drone strikes, all in time for dinner.
The first stage would be political chaos. Some US governors will see this an attempt to seize even more power and side with the Secessionists (looking at you, DeSantis, you shit head). Some US governors will wait to see if a political solution can be sought before picking sides, and other governors will side the US government. Congress will have to figure out what do with US Representatives from Secessionist States. Some members of the military will start to defect or desert for various reasons.
If a political comprise can't be sought, we move to the second stage. Secessionist States start seizing US military bases and their assets and more members of the US military and Secessionist States start to desert/defect. Russia, China, Iran, and other countries sensing an opportunity, start to exploit the ongoing chaos. This includes massive disinformation campaigns, funding violent organizations, and isolating US allies.
A small amount of far-right militias sensing an opportunity with the US government dealing with the beginnings of a civil act, start to act. Small bombings and assassinations to further their political goals. Conservatives in Northern California start terror campaigns in Southern California. Progressive groups start being targeted and band together for safety. Foreign interference becomes more involved. Refugees start fleeing.
Third stage is full out war. Battles between Secessionist forces and the US Military start happening. Every state has either decided to join one side or goes their own way. Political crises pop up in US territories. Local insurgencies break out amongst groups fighting for power as central governments are pre-occupied with fighting a civil war. Foreign inference is at a maximum with direct financial, military, or logistical support to whatever group aligns with foreign powers.
We saw this with happen with the Iraq War with it's multitude of Shiite and Sunni militias fighting each other and the US. Same thing happened in Syria, with groups supporting the government against those fighting against the government and the Kurds. We saw what can happen with a dedicated low tech insurgency can do in Afghanistan and Vietnam against a far more advanced military.
At best, the US is 11 different countries trying to be one country.. At worst, the US is 50 different countries trying to be one country.
Robert Evans of Behind the Bastards wrote an article about the beginnings of a civil war.
Not locking trump up for insurrection was the permission slip the lunatics were looking for to do it again, grab and concentrate more power, and watch as the constitutional abiding lawmakers sit and fret about what to do with the lawmakers who are overthrowing democracy.
That said I'm still voting for whoever has a platform that isn't "fascism good ok?"
Yeah a civil war would be so unbelievably messy people don't understand in the slightest and are way too gung ho about it lol
You're bringing guns to a drone fight.
bringing guns to an artillery, CAS, MBT fight
So... Every gun in the US is owned in Texas?
No, every person who owns a gun is part of a hive mind that thinks exactly like the person who created this. Or so they think.
Not only that, every last one is apparently owned by people ready to die for Greg Abbot's ego
Conservatives are not going to be happy when they find out liberals have guns too. Or what happened the last time the south tried seceding.
They live in a selective reality
Liberals are the fastest growing political group of gun buyers. They still have a lot of catching up to do. Conservatives outgun them 2-1. About 1-in-3 US households have at least one gun.
"Whaddya need all them guns for Jayne, you only got the two arms!"
I wouldn't be surprised if they are also the quietest about owning a gun. They don't need everyone to know they have guns and fantasize about using them.
“I support the former things” is such a stupid fucking slogan. It’s not catchy and sounds like someone tried to rephrase “The good old times” five times in a row. How about:
“Back in the day today!”
“It has been better, it will be better!”
“We chug barrels of cum!”
“Craving for Russian cock uWu”
I swear, the right has zero creativity.
This kind of counteracts the "AR-15s aren't assault rifles" argument, no?
The right and contradiction are best of friends.
They don't care about logic, reason of reality. That's why they can scream about family values and support a degenerate rapist like Trump.
That's the appeal of conservativism. If you are a member of the in group, you are good, and anyone who isn't in the group is bad. That's all the justification a conservative needs to say or do anything that benefits the conservatives in the group.
It's not a contradiction at all. When it serves them to argue you need thirty 5.56 rounds, a silencer, and a bump stock to hunt quail or whatever, then that's the argument they make. When it is best to argue that their assault-themed hunting rifles will help them overthrow the government, that's the argument.
When it helps them to push moral wedge issues to lather up their small minded constituents, they will promote their credentials as the last bastion of moral authority in a world filled with demons. When one of those demons rises to be the leader of their party, they fall in line and claim he's the fucking messiah.
Those arguments aren't contradictory or hypocritical, because when they make them, they are benefitting themselves. Previous statements or positions are like farts in the wind. When they criticized government handouts, it was correct because the criticism helped them get elected, and spending less on social programs let them spend more on benefitting themselves. When they accepted government handouts, it was correct because it benefited themselves.
See how easy this is? Rational people are often confused, and assume there must be some Olympic level mental gymnastics going on inside of the mind of a conservative. It's not that complicated, and there isn't hardly anything going on. That's the appeal. You don't have to think, you don't have to remember, and you owe nobody an explanation. You are right because of who you are and therefore anything you want to do or say is righteous. Just don't go against the in-group.
They say that because “assault rifle” has a definition which the vast majority of citizen owned AR-15s do not meet.
Every time someone uses this term incorrectly, like now, it reinforces their perception that those opposed to gun ownership have no idea what they’re taking about regarding guns.
To avoid this, we should be willing to at least look up the simplest of definitions.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Then, usually, the response is “yeah well now we’re just splitting hairs/arguing about terms which doesn’t matter” to which I would respond “this thread started with arguing about terms”.
Assault rifle refers to the calibre and application of a rifle.
The smaller 5.56 round is an assault rifle round, this is to distinguish it from the previous larger battle rifle rounds.
The AR-15 was designed with select fire. The ones sold to civilians don't have this capability because it's illegal.
The only people that define these in such a way as you have a gun nuts. Trying to hide the fact that people are selling and marketing a weapon of war to civilians in a peaceful country.
It's literally a semantics argument while ignoring linguistics which allows the people who use words to change them over time.
It's also why they decry they aren't racist, just biased. They don't have stereotypes for no reason...
Yet when you ask them to use correct language like Mr. Ms. Mx. or not call someone by their dead name, they throw a fit. Even if we legally changed the definition right now through law, they still wouldn't agree it's an assault rifle because the military made use of them for war, but now it's not full auto. Just can be with small modifications. Because everyone at war always dumps their mag on full auto whenever they see anyone, right?
Right: It's a clip not a mag for a Mosin Ganant! See you don't know what you're talking about so you can't say take away the guns people use to go on terrorist murder sprees or threaten democracy with!
Left: ... We just want you to not be able to shoot through body armor, people, and others en masse, please? I don't really care that it's called an assault weapon.
Right: 2ND AMENDMENT.
Left: We already put restrictions on that and most of the right agrees with stuff like red flag laws and not letting violent criminals have them.
Right: SORRY EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A GUN EVEN IF THEY'RE AN ABUSER. 2ND AMENDMENT. ORIGINALIST. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MURDER ANYONE WHO STEPS FOOT ON MY PROPERTY.
Left: Doesn't the bank own your property, lifted truck, and a company own half your farm equipment and big rig?
This is a new one. I've never seen anyone but the least educated claim that ARs aren't assault rifles. Automatic, sure, but there's no definition of assault rifle that doesn't include an AR.
Assault rifles, by definition, have select fire capabilities. Commercially available civilian AR-15 is semi-auto single fire only. People are often confused by the AR designation, but that stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer of the rifles. They are officially called "assault-style" rifles, although that term isn't very popular because it seems like a minor quibble. In all other measures (shorter rifle, intermediate cartridge, detachable box magazine, range of 300 meters) the AR-15 meets the criteria to be called an "assault rifle," except for the select-fire.
It's worth mentioning that many popular models can be easily modified by a competent gunsmith to add burst and/or full auto firing. It's illegal, but that doesn't stop a terrorist who thinks they are going to need their rifle to join the insurrection. At that point it would be an assault rifle.
Internet comments are crazy. AR15s are semi auto. The first 3 definitions I found would not include an AR15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle - this second definition includes semi auto rifles however
The AR-15 defined assault rifles in a way. Outside of experimental weapons. Most countries that use assault rifles are based on the AR-15, the cheaper to licence AR-18 or the Soviet response to the American AR-15/M16.
They're both assault rifles and weapons of war. So what's your point? Since the Revolution Americans have owned military-grade, and usually better grade, rifles.
They aren't the largest army.
They are the largest infantry.
Big difference.
They're definitely the largest by BMI.
Sick burn, bro.
They are the largest infantry.
I've seen infantry. I've been infantry. These are NOT infantry.
♫ My bombs go jingle jangle jingle as they fly right merrily along ♫
How little the average redneck understands this joke... I'll explain it like to a five year old:
72 bazillion guns are USELESS against one single B52 carpet bombing the shit out of you.
Modern Warfare makes a gun fight look like a cave men throwing stones.
Yes, but also you're ignoring the reality of the resilience of insurgent forces to air power. You cannot win the war only from the air.
The Texas Gravy Seals are going to have to leave their bunkers for burgers and beer eventually...and insulin.
Good thing the most well funded military in the world, greater than the next 9 nations combined, is also at their beck and call. This isn't the NVA, this is a bunch of 280 pound guys who practice shooting from benches, going against drones, artillery, bombers, tanks, missiles, etc.
One of the fattest countries in the world aren't hardened fighters after years of various occupations. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. is not comparable to the US and Texas
“EndWokeness”?
Do these people even listen to themselves?
I nearly spit out my coffee when I walked past a bookstore and saw Ted Cruz’s “Unwoke” on display.
This is just as golden as them being against antifa. Y’all ever stop to think that maybe that leaves you standing with the “fa”?
They have absolutely no idea what they're even talking about is the craziest thing. If you ask them to define "woke", they stumble.
Ultimate example of that.
https://www.wbtv.com/story/18577233/nc-pastor-wants-to-isolate-gays-lesbians-until-they-die-out/
"Build a great big, large fence - 50 or a 100 miles long - and put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals - and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. Feed 'em. And you know in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce."
🤡
Wokeness is a great concept for fascist propaganda. It's vague enough to attach all kinds of scary fairytales (your kids are brainwashed for transgender rapists!) and you can umbrella all the minorities under it that you actually hate (Blacks, Jews, Gays, Liberals).
it's political Bolshevism all over again
If lemmy had gold I would give it to you. What an insightful perspective.
Many gun owners are democrats, so their moronic stance against the U.S. fucking military is not off to a great start planning wise
What makes them think all those gun owners would be on their side?
Gun owner here. Texas can suck a bag of dicks.
Samesies.
Quick googling let me know there are about 10 million households in Texas and 40% of those have at least one gun. Lets say that transfer to one gun owner per household. 4 million gun owners in Texas. Lets say 2% of those show up to die. That's gonna be a great army of 80k.
Assuming these bumbling fools will be about as effective as Russians in Ukraine, they will have a mortality rate of about 431 dimwits a day. I would say this is generous, considering what they would be up against. If they fight to the last man; they will last about 185 days. Though it is unrealistic they would fight to the last man. lets say they capitulate after 20% losses. That hypothetical conflict would last about a month.
I would like to believe they would just get cold feet before any violence sets in. It's easy to talk tough on social media, but when cold reality washes over them, they will do the smarter thing.
My numbers might be way off. It was just a fun little math exercise. Edit: I didn't take in to account that only about 39% of adults are republican voters.
Seems like Texas has less households with guns than the national average
Bruh I'm a gun owner for sport, don't lump me in with the stupid crowd. I don't care if I couldn't own guns anymore, I'd just find a different hobby. I'm sure as shit not coming to the rescue of Texas
I own guns. I like guns. I find them very fun. I'll wave goodbye to Texas in a heartbeat.
I can't stand the people who make guns their identity. They remind me of the potheads who have rasta flags, pit leaves on everything, and listen to Bob Marley nonstop.
Weird how all the gun people didn't do a goddamn thing when Citizens United happened
When people they like do thing that are bad, that makes it okay.
It’s only bad when people they don’t like do it.
It’s toddlerlogic.
It's also bad when the people they hate try to do good.
Does Texas not know the ac130 exists?
Civil wars and these memes are dumb, the military isn't going to bomb anything...on top of that, you probably live in the same building or next to a neighbor who would be a target, and bombs aren't that accurate, you will be collateral damage.
No, they aren't going to bomb anything. They'll set up military road blocks and patrols to secure federal control over the area, and the soldiers doing it will come from the nearest army base.
So to actually fight against the federal government, the chucklefucks would have to shoot their soldier neighbors, friends, sons and acquaintances in the head while other soldiers watch them from behind a heavy machinegun. Not gonna happen.The government dropping bombs onto US citizens is more likely than you think: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of poison gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect as evidence for the defense during treason and murder trials. On orders from General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance.
Depends, can they put bbq sauce on it
An army is comprised of trained soldiers, not a bunch of jackasses with guns.
Curious to see how an army of 72 million angry, obstinate people functions. I'm sure that will be a very cohesive military.
That “de-facto” is doing a lot of work.
If the American government came after Texas (as in they seceded) how would they have 72m gun owning Americans to join their cause? They wouldnt be part of the U.S. at that point.
You're right, shame that's the only flaw in this otherwise well reasoned argument
You need to pay more attention. Almost every state bordering Mexico and several that aren't are backing Texas on the decision of opposing the federal branch on this. The Fed coming after Texas wouldn't necessarily mean secession either: that's why it would be a civil war, with much of the south joining Texas in their cause.
That is, if it goes that far to begin with. There's just no way Texas will be alone in their cause, whether you like their cause or not. They already aren't perfectly aligned with the fed, and there's no universe where every state is in alignment with the fed against Texas.
Not all of those 72 million people are chuds. Statistically speaking, like 50 million of those 72 million can't make it to the end of their driveway without needing to catch their breath.
Huh YEAH!!!
THANKS OBAMA!!11!
Equating gun ownership with sedition and secession is pretty stupid. Go for it, Texas. Your backup numbers are fewer than you think.
There was an article a few weeks ago about how Texas is the least-free state in the union. They have the fewest liberties, yet they can carry guns and that's all they care about.
i would like to add - not even all gun owners in texas are interested in opposing the feds in this case!
Equating gun ownership with sedition and secession is pretty stupid.
If the state of Texas ever went into serious revolt, the first thing it would need to do is flood the streets of Houston, Dallas, and Austin with military police to contain their own domestic insurrection.
Half those gun owners would happily Texas Book Depository Greg Abbott if he was ever in their line of fire.
Yeah, I’m not worried about the gravy seals. They can only carry so much ammo on their mobility scooters.
Plus their own fear will cause them to shit their diapers, further weighing them down.
Entire nations know better than to take on the US military, who have a larger budget than the next ten nations combined and won’t even give you a target to shoot at, and these dick weasels think they can do it with commercially available weapons and no training?
LMAO. Go ahead, try it. I’ll be here with popcorn.
Entire nations know better than to take on the US military
The US isn't just a military stick, it's also an economic carrot. The folks that end up wrangling with the stick are inevitably the ones denied the carrot.
Countries like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and I guess now Yemen had been in an economic conflict with the US - via embargos and proxy wars - long before the first American soldier arrived.
The thing about Texas is that a handful of jerk-offs posting from their 8086s in Beaumont aren't the guys who will feel the pain in a serious break away.
It's Dell Computer and Exxon and fucking Pizza Hut that will hurt. And their executives will drag these dissidents out back to the wood shed themselves long before The Republic of Texas dipshits need to worry about a B-52 over their heads.
Idiot right-wing gun-lovers who actively support the kind of fascism we need to be fighting aside...
The idea isn't to fight tanks and jets with rifles head-on. The idea is that an anonymous armed insurgency is really hard to defeat. Anti-armor vehicles work great against armor, but trying to use them on small insurgents made up of random individuals is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer: you do a lot of collateral damage but the actual target is fine.
Overconfidence in stealth jets and aircraft carriers is why Iraq and Afghanistan turned into decades-long engagements before we'd just gave up and left. The regular Iraqi army was defeated in under 2 weeks, but we still lost the war.
And if it were to happen here, the government would also have to worry a lot more about troops unwilling to kill fellow citizens, unlike in the middle east where they were all strangers speaking a different language.
The idea is that an anonymous armed insurgency is really hard to defeat.
The US army is very good at that. That’s the kind of conflict they’ve been fighting since Vietnam. If you think a distributed guerrilla army can stand against the US military on their own soil, you’re delusional.
I’m not talking about tanks and jets. That’s so last century. That’s not how wars are fought now. There’s just no way homegrown militias would have any hope against the US military in their midst. Ask anyone enlisted in any branch of the military. I promise they’ll tell you that’s a pipe dream.
To be honest, we "lost" those wars because of our intolerance for splash damage. We often knew where the insurgents were, but to take them out would mean killing a lot of civilians. We had to wait until they were in a place where the collateral damage was minimal, even if it meant they got away. Israel and Russia don't seem to have this problem, but look at where it's landed them on the stage of world opinion.
People that believe in a "surgical" war are why we lose. We would have prevailed in an all out conflict where civilian casualties are acceptable. We have the firepower. But that might be viewed as genocide, which is unacceptable.
This is why the US is involved in so many conflicts. War is supposed to be terrible, and therefore avoided by all sides. When rules are in play, the weaker side believes they can win by hiding among civilians. This is the insurgents' playbook - let the other side play by the rules, and when they don't, scream foul. Never mind that combatants hiding among civilians is also against the rules.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria. Insurgency is very different from peer/near peer. Not to mention in the event of a civil war, at least some amount of the military would side with them. And another portion would not want to bomb urban areas especially.
@EndWokeness
Hmm
By that logic, they must think every single gun owner lives in Texas.
The fashy gun types have this weird delusion that they're the only ones with guns.
Easy to understand, honestly, the culture has become so toxic all the sane people stay out and way the hell away from the NRA.
In case there is anyone in here who thinks Texas has a chance of winning a civil war against the rest of the US. Watch this.
If Texas decided tomorrow they were seceding, Abbott and everyone else involved in that decision would be hogtied and presented to the feds within the week after
- Every electric plant in the state was bombed. This works because TX has its own grid to dodge fed rules. Hence why it fails in winter because capitalism means fuck safety rules.
- Every credit and debit card in the state stopped working, along with likely every bank account, which is vaguely related to 1 but also for its own reasons.
- Every grocery shelf went bare. We saw what COVID did.
In a smart system, they'd try everyone involved and lock them all up for life and the incident would serve as a reminder that if you fuck around you will find out. Of course with our luck we'd get some dipshit president to fuck up that bit just like after the civil war
This worked so well in Afghanistan am I right?
What is winning? Subduing Texas?
Absolutely ridiculous that you think carpet bombing would be
A. Effective Or B. Politically possible.
There wouldn’t be a fight. It would be half suicidal for federal troops for a long time, and to think brother would blindly fight brother is crazy talk. Our military, through every end of our ranks, is filled with Texans and their family.
It would never happen, but the idea that Texas would just be overrun like Iraq is absolutely stupid.
It's amazing the people that deliberately avoid "CRT" topics and push defunding schools do not know the events ov Blair mountain, the bombing of MOVE in Philadelphia, and/or black wall street. Absolutely shocked!
72 million gun owners seems low to me...
Here's a stat that pegs the total number of guns at around 434 million and just under 20 million AR-15s.
https://www.guns.com/news/2020/11/17/data-us-has-434-million-guns-20m-ars-150m-mags
At only 72 million gun owning homes, that would mean, on average, 6 guns per gun owner?
https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
22% of gun owners have only a single firearm. So if the 72 million number is correct, that means 15,840,000 single gun owners, and the remaining 418,160,000 guns are owned by 56,160,000, or 7.45 guns per owner.
Sounds about right. I grew up in central Missouri, and while relatively few of my friends had guns, the one that did had a goddamn arsenal in his bedroom. Two shotguns, three rifles, and a "big" handgun that all stayed in a gun safe, and a .22 pistol he kept under the bed "for safety." And that was just his room, as a high schooler... His brother and his mother both had other weapons of their own.
Even people who are just hobby shooters or hunters rather than 2A "mah guns" weirdos like said friend was tend to accumulate weapons over time. It's like any other hobby in that regard.
Yeah, there are a lot of shades of gray for multiple gun owners.
- Own a single handgun for self defense
- Own a single rifle for hunting
- Own both of the above
- Own different rifles for hunting different animals
- Own a Shotgun for hunting birds (plus some combination of the above)
- Own an old/historic gun more as an art piece (but it's functional if wanted)
- Owns a fucking arsenal
Add in the fact that some people sort of end up collecting guns the way some people collect guitars...I wouldn't be so quick to turn away from the original statistic.
LHaving met a good few gun fans. Yeah 7 to 8 guns seems like a low average.
Helped a friend move from a apartment to a new house. Over 15 guns. I say over as he also had a number of parts. I do not know enough to know if complete guns could be built. Looked like a few complete guns possible to my non gun fan eyes.
This was when I lived in GA. He was not considered unusual by most of the friends helping us.
What seems less likely to me. Is all 72m around the US siding with Texas.
What seems less likely to me. Is all 72m around the US siding with Texas.
They can't fathom this. They think they after all their threats and dehumanization, none of the people they're targeted have gone and gotten guns.
But hey, we always knew logic wasn't their strong suit.
Oh, the math in this is all kinds of fucked up. OPOP knows stats exists, they just haven't met it personally.
Not all 72M gun owners live in Texas, and not all of the ones that do support these turds. They mention an AR15 stat, and then completely ignore it in the conclusion.
Also, as someone else reponded, yeah: 6 guns per owner seems about right on average. I have 6: two rifles and 4 handguns. And there are a few more I'd like to collect; I wouldn't be surprised if I had 10 or 11, eventually. It's a hobby, and I like to shoot. And I don't even hunt; hunters are going to have different guns for differrent game, and might have even more than average.
It's a hobby, and like hobbies, the people who are into it are going to own predominantly more of the thing. The 2A and gun violence make it a political and socially sensitive topic, and changes the verbiage, but otherwise the same hobby trends apply.
The population of the US is ~330 million total.
By the pigeonhole principal, that means that some gun owners must own 2 guns, because there's more guns than people.
Anyways, multiple guns per owner makes intuitive sense, because different guns are for different things. You aren't going to hunt an elk with the same caliber rifle you'd hunt a rabbit with. Either you won't kill the elk, or you'll just have a fine mist that used to be a rabbit.
For another thing, ammunition costs are different for different calibers. You can buy .22 lr for under 10 cents per round. Meanwhile, 30-06 is over $1 per round. So you can do more target practice for the same money with a cheaper round.
As the War of 1812 showed "organized militias" kinda suck.
I fear it won't be organized militias like the US civil war. A force with armies, clear borders, is much easier to fight against.
It'll be more like the IRA. Lots of domestic terrorism, mostly acts committed by "lone wolfs".
And for what? Some orange turd? State's right to commit human rights violations?
State's right to commit human rights violations?
🎵some things never change🎵
It would absolutely not be like the US civil war, and I’m honestly not sure it’d be the troubles either. I don’t think they have the organization or discipline of the IRA (which itself had multiple iterations and factions).
I think we will see more Unite the Right / fascist marches and we will see terrorist attacks, but the “militias” aren’t going to be the ones who constitute an existential threat to the US. That’s going to be Trump 2 or whatever else they come up with.
They knew this in 1776. The Swamp Fox and his militia were the only effective group, and they did it by being terrorists, but that's kind of the general idea these days.
I don't think anyone expects militias to actually hold a front anymore. At best they expect them to get rolled into the real military and go through retraining until most of them wash out because they weren't expecting to do anything but dress up and fantasize about killing brown people.
After watching all the Ukraine war footage videos. Most of the deaths come things you can't see. An AR is practically useless. War has changed again....
You bring up a very good point. I don't see the seceding Texans faring very well against the drone dropped grenades being used against Russia by the Ukraine. If it came down to it, the US militaries drones could handle the whole rebellion.
The US army doesn't really need to do anything. They can just deploy about 20 drone operators to quell the whole thing.
Even well-trained regular infantry aren't worth a whole lot when faced with artillery, tanks, planes and whatnot - things these idiots seem to be lacking in their closets full of peashooters.
This idea that the US military is just gonna bomb Houston without the people in the Air Force saying, hey, wait a minute, I've got family there, is just stupid. If you think that US Civil War Part II is going to be over quickly and easily, without the same kind of grind that we had the first time, well, I've got some bad news for you.
There's not going to be a Civil War. Stop believing all the posturing that Texas is doing. They can't even survive a bit of cold weather (or a bit of hot weather!).
While I agree that the Texas bullshit is a big nothing burger, I can see scenarios where if Trump is President again and orders the military to do something unconstitutional some parts of the military refuse to carry out the order (as they're supposed to) and other parts of the military (possibly not understanding the constitution) feel duty bound to carry out an order from the commander in chief.
That's something that could get messy.
Probably not. But you know what is going to happen? Abbot is going to stoke fears over undocumented migrants, and say that the feds refused to do anything --while he has been actively working to prevent them from doing anything--allowing Trump to say that he's the only one that has a strong anti-immigrant stance. That gets the MAGA shitheads riled up and excited to vote, despite Republicans accomplishing fuck-all in the last four years, while Biden has managed to deal with a lot of shit.
And if Trump doesn't win? Then all this shit goes to SCOTUS, which further weakens the ability of the federal gov't to do anything for public good.
While you do have a point that is also how every civil war starts. People don't want to fight until they do. Lincoln was in command of the troops in south until he wasn't. Even Ceaser had some mutiny because civil war is not fun. Scary part is it happens anyway.
There were people prior to the US Civil War that actively committed terrorist acts for the political purpose of ending slavery. Some of those actions arguably galvanized public support for a war. Such as John Brown; his raid on the arms depot in Harper's Ferry was used as propaganda in the south to say that the north would never accept slavery, and therefore the "rational" thing to do was to secede.
We've already seen small far-right groups milling around the edges of terrorism; the Proud Boys, Threepers, Patriot Front, etc. They're pushing the needle.
Why would they bomb cities? You'd drone strike the leadership and it would have minimal (if any) extra casualties.
This goes both ways though, doesn't it? Texas is one of the largest tech hubs in the US, just after California. And a number of companies have been relocating to Texas because it has cheaper corporate taxes. (Screw them workers, gotta earn that dolla.)
going by Ukraine, which is the only footage I've seen of real modern warfare: I saw a video of a drone detecting a soldier from high up. The soldier is lying prone aiming their rifle..The drone drops an object. There is a small pop and the soldier dies. It wasn't a big explosion, you couldn't even see blood or a wound, probably just enough to be fatal without causing a horrible mess.
That's what I imagine it'll be. A bunch of people sitting around bored and they don't even know they're dead until one second they are looking at the horizon, the next second their intestines in confusion as their consciousness fades.
...Except that's going to be happening on both sides. Because Texas is one of the biggest tech hubs in the US.
This idea that the US military is just gonna bomb Houston
No point. Haven't you learned from two other gulf invasions? Building on the standard operating procedure, it'd be like:
- knock out power
- oh, wait: end of list
As we've seen, the loss of electricity in texas means everything else shuts off and the people start attacking each other. Outside the schools, even.
If you think that US Civil War Part II is going to be over quickly and easily,
Oh it'll be simple. Any state in rebellion no longer has federal say. You'll easily pass a law that punishes any company headquartered in a rebellious state, and you're done by the afternoon. The oil and gas companies will personally coup Abbott if the federal government refuses them infrastructure otherwise.
You're assuming that the cities would be on the side of the traitors for some reason.
There is zero chance of secession and zero chance of texas being bombed by the us air force
The only shooting will be gun crime and in schools, which is business as usual for the USA and apparently not really even that noteworthy given the level of media coverage.
What's funny is that the people who are most into this ideology are also the "Screw you, got mine"s that will snitch on coworkers and rat on neighbors to the HOA. But claim the government is always evil.
Later they drive like they own the road and bully other drivers on (sub)urban streets, while poofing coal-black exhaust from their double-wide trucks and oversized SUVs decorated with skeletal middle fingers and American flag punisher skull window stickers. Let's add truck nuts into this picture too, it's statistically not-unlikely.
They have some fantasy that a bunch of self-absorbed hyper-individualist misanthropes just like them are going to somehow cohesively band together to fight...the federal government...over... petty stupid things like manufactured culture wars...so that they can achieve a miserable little hate-driven utopia...? Do I got that right?
Meanwhile, neighborly, responsible, quiet, trained, community-minded gun owners will gladly organize amongst themselves to aid inevitable victims of all this nonsense, and would fare a heckuva lot better as a group.
They're the ones that would make foreign invaders or overstepping republics think twice.
These arterial-grease-ridden LARPers are being used so hard and they think it's all their idea.
As their disgraced and treasonous Great Leader(TM) might tweet:
"SAD."
Most people I know who own guns do so because they are afraid of black people. Not because they are itching to join a rebellion.
You like to hang out with white supremacists?
I know probably a hundred gun owners since I have my own range, none of them own firearms because they're afraid of black people... considering about half of them including myself are POCs...
You're statement which is false as fuck just makes you sound like a racist.
Yikes.
You should learn more about liberal and poc gun groups
Effing us army is woke - all those “other” guys are allowed in and they’re taking our rights (to die horribly in third world countries where no one wants us and we don’t even know why we’re there)
The US did famously well against groups with just guns and IEDs.
That stint in the Middle East was a quick 20 min adventure.
Vietnam turned out to just be a tropical vacation.
There's no Viet Cong in Texas. I don't see Meal Team 6 dig tunnels in the thick Texan jungle.
Yes and no. We played that game by rules only we abided by.
Had we gone in and stayed without those rules, it would've been over within a year. But then we'd have committed a genocide and would be ruthless savages.
I feel that's some hubris chief. Similar to Vietnam the military objective was met, but the reason for war, and so the victory conditions, are the political objective. We failed those. And breaking our rules does not de-motivate the insurgency or move us to the political objective. Let's remember that one of those is a democracy and US ally in government in those countries.
It's always funny to see those secessionist traitors act like we're all going to be on their side. A lot of us gun toting Texans have no problem fighting for our nation against the traitors in our state.
American gun owners don't challenge the government. They take their anger out on women and children and themselves at the very end. The government will be fine.
There are only ~30 million people living in Texas, do they think gun owners from other States are going to come support Texas?
Can't wait for the gathering of domestic terrorists to gather and get hit with a drine strike
Would like to see what that rifle would do against a tank or an IFV.
This is exactly the hilarity I was talking about.
Such a facetious argument to act like guns wouldn't in some way limit the military.
Because even if you bomb territory that doesn't mean you can occupy it, see Afghanistan and Vietnam. Infantry is needed for occupation when the enemy is mixed in with civilians.
And furthermore, don't you think in the event of a civil war a fair bit of the military would be a bit unwilling to bomb urban areas?
unwilling to bomb urban areas
They've never had a problem with that before.
Maybe true
I agree with you on everything except the government being unwilling to bomb urban areas the police have done it before, why would the military be any different?
Bombing people is not that effective indeed. The American government should learn from Stalin - public purges and famine will make anyone compliant. Can't fight a partisan war when you're starved to death and can't even walk.
Would take a long time before they starve to death though, lol.
I disagree with the sentiment of the OOP, but this is and always had been a bad argument. Take a look at the Middle East if you want to see what aircraft does to guerilla militia forces. An AC130 can't patrol streets or breach doors. You need boots on the ground for that, boots that are 100% susceptible to gunfire.
Not to mention the fact that the federal government has lost command of the CBP, who are openly defying Biden's orders.
The enemy in the middle east is ready to live in a cave and use kids as suicide bombers to further their cause. I don't think folks accustomed to Costco and buffalo wild wings and healthcare are ready for that life.
I love a little bit of racism mixed with social inaccuracy. You're right that people wouldn't want to go without Costco or modern luxuries. That's why they'd fight even harder when the people in power told them that it was the evil federal government that had taken it from them and that if they just fight a little bit, things will be better than ever before. You're forgetting how dangerous of a combo that authoritarian govt. + uneducated population (which describes Texas perfectly) is.
Also,
healthcare
What Texans are accustomed to healthcare already lol?
Cool, so you’re in support of the federal government bombing its own citizens because of a disagreement over some barbed wire?
Just good to know which side you’re on.
If they secede they aren't citizens anymore
Hm, good point. So you're in favor of bombing people you disagree with in general, then?
All of you upvoting this garbage aren't thinking about what it's saying or how it will negatively affect you.
If a government would be willing to annihilate 72 million of its own people, just for trying to leave no matter how stupid or cruel the reason is... what makes you think it won't do that to you when you try to organize a general strike, or fight it off when it turns fascist?
Do you people think critically about anything you see at all?
No one thinks the US Government is going to use bombs on 72 million of the 30 million people in Texas. Especially as a first resort.
I would hope not, shit. The way the meme sounds, it implies the U.S. government would kill every single gun owner throughout the country.
Maybe you're missing the context. The last time a group of states tried to leave we had a war about it. The confederates lost, are generally considered to have been in the wrong, and basically cemented the precedent that if any state tries it again they'll get the same result. Everyone pretty much assumes that if Texas really did try to leave it would result in armed conflict, with the scale likely determining if we call it a civil war or not. This is more making fun of the laughable claim that Texas could win in such a scenario, since the US military is better funded than the next 4 or 5 best funded militaries combines. It is generally assumed that the federal government wouldn't fight for Texas for the aforementioned historical reasons. Also there's not 72 million people in Texas, there's around 30 million, and many of those 72 million gun owners wouldn't fight for Texas. I'd hazard to say most.
Well, obviously. But people are upvoting it because "hurr, kill all right-wingers" without actually thinking about what it's saying, and that bothers me.
How did bombing vietnam work for you?
Also you really think the mikitary is going to bomb citizens who they could know or family member in texas?
Try it, actually try it. Dont talk about bombing us, actually do it and see what happens.
Bro bombing would be the least of the concerns lol
Vietnam didn't work because people native to the region had a much much greater understanding of the terrain, locals, dangers, etc.
The US government probably has a contingency plan to attack any given state should it fall under enemy control.
I swear y'all think way too highly of yourselves.
As if the US military doesn't have operational plans to deal with the state that has been talking about secession since the last time they did that.
To be fair, there is a major difference between jungle in Vietnam and forests in Texas. From my understanding there are some pretty rugged swamps and marshes in Texas, but the majority of it is just normal woodlands. That's putting aside that the vast majority of Texas overall is flatland that would be perfect for heavy vehicles and bombing.
Below is a map of the regions of Texas, pretty much the dark green, light green, and south east yellow sections would have any significant geographic impact on the military.
You sound like George Costanza at the theaters. I hope you know that Seinfeld is fiction
Every b52 is stationed in a red state. A lot of ignoring the details in here.
On land that the states don't own, controlled by military staff that work for the feds. What is your point?
That you cannot assume what will happen ?
Read a few of these comments.
Seems like the folks I usually am amused by and agree with on a lot of things have chosen to ignore that the use of American bombs on Americans sounds fun to them.
Remember: just because someone disagrees with us does not give us the right to blow them up.
Ever.
Except this isn't a disagreement on something that can be ignored. This isn't a "let bygones be bygones" situation.
This is Texas killing/trafficking immigrants while actively calling for secession.
This is Texas reminding the rest of the country that they're still the traitorous cowards they've always been
I obviously can’t be invested, good sir, in any argument here.
Y’all have convinced I am surrounded by heady progressives and some practical liberals who — it’s not the best system, but if we dream of eating the rich one day, we can all get along.
Now comes this discussion of Texas secession and the image of bombing citizens.
Yes — these are despicable times and many Texans are behaving despicably.
But liberal values at their heart are humanist— we must honor these Texans as living humans first — and sadly, allow them the privilege of being wrong.
They are wrong.
And they are our countrymen— forgive the archaic language.
Imagining the bombing of our countrymen over decisions thrust upon them by the RECKLESS actions of others goes against who we are and what we all share in common.
It is my hope that when you see violent propaganda if this kind, you remember that United we stand. And that includes our despicable removed cousins the Texans. [pardon use of R word]
Brand new account at Lemmy? Hmm… Agent Provacatuer— useless here, brother.
Go work your X account
Well, look at afghanistan. B52 hardly made a difference against an army of farmers with AKs defending their homeland. Or the Viet Cong for that matter.
The situations are very different. I'm not saying it would end any better, but it would be a wildly different conflict.
Of course it would a different conflict, but the basic premise applies all the same.
Afghanistan is thousands of miles away, our military has very little local, international, nor domestic support, and the Afghan people are battle hardened people that has been in constant warfare since the industrial revolution and had been trained by the very force they were fighting. Jim Bob and the boys, have no advantage. There would be some support from locals and some from the military but none from high up in leadership and not enough from the people. Comparing the Afghans to how things would go here is laughable at best.
