Some Gun Math

[The Dunedan]

Ok. Whenever I ( or anyone else ) posits that the reason for the 2nd Amendment and bearing arms is so that an oppressed population might overthrow their masters, I ( and others ) always hear the following:
"You'd never win! They've got machineguns and tanks and helicopters and lots of soldiers!"

This seems true, on it's face. However, I did some research and number-crunching which changes the picture quite a bit.



---------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers

Combatants: There are about 80,000,000 gunowners in the US. Let's assume a general gun-grab, "turn 'em all in" scenario. Now, let's assume that 90% of gunowners obey. This leaves 8,000,000 people in posession of weapons. Let's further assume that 10% of these remaining chose to resist with force. This leaves us with 800,000 Resistors.
There are about 1.5 Million people serving in the active Armed Forces. Let's assume that only 25% of these ( this number from a DoD study in 1998 ) are willing to fire on American citizens. This takes 75% ( roughly 1.12 Million ) effectively out of the fight, leaving us with 380,000 Military to oppose the Resistors.

So, the Resistors now outnumber the Opressors by more than 2-1.

Arms: There are about 270,000,000 guns in this country. Again, let's assume that only 1% of these remain in circulation after the 'gun grab.' That's 2.7 million firearms in the hands of the Resistors; roughly three weapons for each fighter. To put things in raw terms, this means a rifle, pistol, and shotgun for each Resistor, or any mixture thereof.

So, we now have 800,000 Resistors with 2.7 Million weapons facing 380,000 ( give or take ) Opressors, most of whom will be armed only with a single rifle ( in the Infantry aspect ). Not sounding too bad for the Good Guys so far. This is not taken into account the numbers of fighters and weapons which could be gained from the 75% of the Services which won't shoot Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology and Capability.

Tech: Our Opressor is armed with various high-tech weapons systems. Tanks, APCs, helicopters, IR, and so forth.

Tanks: If an infantryman has the sand to get close enough, tanks are very easy to immobilize or destroy. Simple Thermite will do the job, in the right spot. Also, the control to activate the Halon fire-extinguisher system on the M1A2 is on the outside. Push the button and watch the fun. There are also holes in either side of the Turret, for when the tank has to be disassembled for maintainance. Fire a burst or two into the crew compartment through the holes, and watch the fun. When "buttoned up," ( hatches closed ) tank crewmen rely on small periscopes to see what they're doing. Tankers generally 'button up' whenever they come under fire, naturally. Shoot up the periscope lenses ( an easy target for a reasonably skilled rifleman with a scoped weapon ) and they either can't see, or have to replace the 'scope. They carry spares, but only a few. Man who can't see can't fight. Tanks are also notoriously unreliable, noisy, gas-guzzling money pits. The M1A2 requires 1.45hrs of maintainance for every 1hr spent in motion.

APCs: These are tougher, but the same rule applies. Burn em, blind 'em, run 'em into obstacles. If, on TV, tanks and APC's look like they're driving around blind, it's because they usually are. APCs are more dangerous because they carry infantrymen in a rear compartment, but the same strategy generally applies. APCs are also very vulnerable to Improvised Explosive Devices, because their thin aluminum armor actually amplifies the effect of an explosion on the outside of the vehicle.

Helicopters: Once again, a terrifying idea, but easy to take down if you can stand your ground and STAY STILL. The Afghans showed us how, fighting the Soviets. Pilots look for motion when trying to detect people under cover. So, stay still and don't panic or move quickly. From here, it's a simple matter of distracting, injuring, or annoying the flight crew long enough to cause the 'copter to crash. One helicopter that I know of, in Vietnam, went down because the pilot got his left pinky finger shot off. Helicopters have to be under total control, every second, or they crash like a rock; they're -that- unstable. A deer hunter with a 30-30 could do this; the Afghans did it with 125-year-old Martini rifles.

IR/Sattilites, etc etc: Boo-freakin-hoo. They found us. Now they can A; fire a $30M cruise missle at ten guys in the woods, B: Drop a $2M JDAM on ten guys in the woods, or C: Send some poor Infantry schmucks out to kill ten guys in the woods. Which brings us tooo.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capability.

I, and twenty other people I can think of offhand, can all hit a man-sized target at 500 meters, shooting over open sights. I, and all those other people, can expect to make headshots at ranges of up to 300 yards, or 500 yards if we're using a scope. I also know a half-dozen people or so who could hit a man-size target at 1 MILE using a good scoped bolt-action rifle. And these are just the people I know personally. Think back to that 800,000 figure from before. I GAURANTEE you that of those 800,000 radicals, over half are equally capable or better. Most are using .30-calibre weapons, which can instantly incapacitate out to about 800 Meters/yards.
On the other hand, the entire Military ( except Marines ) qualify at 300 yards. A little over 25% have to try again. Now, bear in mind, this is with a round ( 5.56mm NATO ) which at anything past 250-300 Yards is the equivalent of getting hit with a .22LR. Might be fatal if it got you through the eye or temple. Otherwise, you might eventually die ( in a few days/hours ) but for right now, you're mostly just pissed off. So, a substandard shooter with a substandard cartridge. Doesn't look too good for the Bad Guys.

So, we've got 350,000 guys who can't hit a 20x40 target at 300, shooting an anemic round, facing 800,000 guys who can hit a 20x40 at 600, firing a round with 3x+ the killing power. Looks pretty good for the Good Guys.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endgame.

Which brings us down to this.
The Oppressor would, most likely, have to bring in Foreign help, to plug up the manpower holes if nothing else. Now, all of a sudden, there are Chinese/German/French/take your pick UN troops marching down Main St, USA. That 800,000-man army just got a LOT bigger. Americans will take almost anything from other Americans, but let some blue-helmet march down their street, and they'll get MAD. Now, say, there's 2,000,000 Resistors facing 1,500,000 Opressors, who are now made up mostly of poorly-trained Conscripts who hate the food, don't speak the language, are poorly supplied ( because they all carry different weapons, ammunition, and equipment, making logistics a nightmare ) who can't shoot., and who's technology is obsolete. Still looking pretty good for the Good Guys.

Here's the bottom line, folks. The Good Guys win. On numbers, they win. On ability, they win. On time, they win. The only questions now are:
1: When do they win, and
2:How quickly do they win?

I don't know. I'm not a soothsayer. But we still win.

For further reading and sources, see;
"Boston's Gun Bible" by Boston T. Party, available from Javalin Press

[PatrickHenry]

Imperial Troopers vs the Rebel Alliance? Any chance for elections to short circuit the bloody conflict, Dunedan?

[The Dunedan]

Dear God let's hope so!!

Like I said, this is the endgame. Hopefully, things won't go that far.

[PatrickHenry]

How many of the potential Rebel Alliance are currently asleep with regard to the growth of the Imperial threat? Percentage wise in your estimation? Also, care to assess the possibility of leadership and recruiting from among the current Imperial Troops, in the event of hostilities?

[The Dunedan]

That 1% of gunowners who'd resist is wide awake, lemme tell ya. Plus there are probably more who are awake, but couldn't make themselves resist by force of arms.

With that other 75% saying they wouldn't shoot Americans, I'd say recruitment/defection possibilities are pretty good. "Old, grizzled, Master Sargent" types especially.

[PhanthomOps]

The Dunedan:

Extremely impressive post :) :) - how long did it take you to assemble all the statistics??

Quote: "I don't know. I'm not a soothsayer. But we still win."

I believe we would win also. However, if I'm not mistaken, I think you left out a couple of important facts:

1) many of the civilian population who legally own weapons are ex-military
2) quite a number of these ex-military (veterans) have actually used their weapons in a front line combat situation, and are extremely experienced
3) I'm not quite sure of the numbers, however, I would venture to guess that approximately out of the 25% of those who might be willing to fire on civilians that only 12% have the actual experience, but at this point would they really have the guts??

PatrickHenry:
Quote: "Imperial Troopers vs the Rebel Alliance?"

May the Force be with you

[PatrickHenry]

Dunedan, I had another thought. PhantomOps, maybe you could comment, too. What percentage of the citizenry would side with the Imperium/US Gov and against the Rebs? That might throw the math wayyy off... Also, the problem of infiltration and informants.

[Comrade]

Patriots vs. Loyalists, all over again? heh

[bugsbunny04]

SHEEE-EYE-EEEE-IT! That is impressive. If it comes to that, I'm gonna come find you, you've got your sh*t together.

[Leopard]

For further reading and sources, see; "Boston's Gun Bible" by Boston T. Party, available from Javalin Press

also take a look-see at 'Molon Labe' by Boston T. Party - kinda fun book and gives some interesting facts also and a 'scenario' (not necessarily plausible though)

michael

[Poetic_Justice]

Phanthomops and Dunedan, I jsut thought I'd add a couple of extras to your discussion...

A. You left out FBI, CIA, State Troopers, Police, etc. when assembling your stats on who'd be willing to fight. Although most of them wouldn't want to attack American people, and moat of those who did wouldn't be as good as hard core military, they would still make a difference... And hardcore CIA, FBI, and Spec Forces would be an extremel hard nut to crack...

B. Stats taken of only 25% willing to fire on americans doesn't take into account the fact that the govt. would undoubtedly stat a massive propoaganda campaign against any and all resistors withthe help of the major media. That could significantly raise the number of people you'd have to fight.

C. Many of those aforesaid resitors would be ex-military and would have an excellent grasp of all the military technology and how to disable it from exercises at NTC.

D. Tanks and APC's can't operate very well in foothills or mountains and neither can helicopters and jets. This is because the peaks are extremely tough to navigate for aircraft, not even mentioning updrafts and downdrafts. This is also because when tanks and APCs are forced to go up hills whenthey crest the hil they leave themselves vulnerable and every resistor will know it.

E. More important than guns will be explosives and hiding spots. Many resistors being ex-military and ex-police or even defectors they will know how to use explosives extremely well, how to hide them, and how to disable tanks, aircraft, ships, and buildings with them. They will also know how to make mines with them. As for hiding, the mountains are extremely hard to properly identify with even top US technology, and the resistors will know the weaknesses of the technology, making them even harder to find. In addition, they have open borders to run to Mexico and/or Canada to hide. Especially Canada will be useful because trekking through the Rockies will bring you there and diplomatically out of the range of US aircraft and military units...

That's all I got

also assume that the military are humans too. if a portion of the populace sought to rebel, a portion at least as large would defect from the military, taking equipment with it. if there is an uprising or revolution of serious caliber, expect military support when you load your .45 and shotgun.

[bugsbunny04]

It just occured to me how dangerous this thread is. Yall dont be getting into anything specific. I dont wanna have to ever make my stand, but having to make it now is unacceptable.

[madprophet]

This sounds an awful lot like the Turner Diaries. It really does. Which is very, very scary.

My point in pointing this out is that not everyone who will fight for 2nd Amendment rights is a good guy. Not everyone who will fight an oppressor is a good guy. The Right-Wing gun movement hides quite a good number of thugs, fascists, racists, terrorists and bastards in general.

Also, of all the rights and freedoms we have, people are least concerned with the right to bear arms. If a revolution is started it will probably not be by Right-Wing militias alone, but by a vast myriad of groups fighting for many different reasons, who will then, in the end, fight each other.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Anti-gun people use dishonesty to push thier hate of guns. How often are legally owned guns bought by law abiding citizens (prior to the crime of course) use guns to commit crimes?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Anti-gun people use dishonesty to push thier hate of guns.  How often are legally owned guns bought by law abiding citizens (prior to the crime of course) use guns to commit crimes?

Mr Vicc, this thread, if you'd bothered to read any of it, is Pro Gun ownership AND about how citizens can defeat the miltary in a revolt.

[The Dunedan]

I realize that not everybody in this fight will be nice people. I realize that the Right harbours racists and lunatics. So does the Left; just ask Malcolm X. However, the vast majority of those 800,000+ fighters will be decent people fighting to preserve their Liberty. Racists and such are not tolerated by such people, and will -lose- any fight they chose to pick with us. We outnumber them by several orders of magnitude, we shoot better than they do ( because we trust our shooting skills, not some twisted theology to see us through this conflict ) and we're better trained. Their ranks include very few former policemen and soldiers; ours are full to the brim with that sort of people.
Secondly, I own a copy of the Turner Diaries. I bought it out of curiosity, more than anything else. Besides its contemptable racism and stupidity, it is a poorly-written, poorly-concieved piece of trash, with nothing of any tactical value to teach a Patriot. Please, before you compare me to something/someone, know of what you speak.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by The Dunedan, ...Racists and such are not tolerated by such people, and will -lose- any fight they chose to pick with us ....

racism and all forms of discrimination are inherent in the human mind. However 'wrong' or 'incorrect' or 'economically unviable' the effects of discrimination is, it will remain with us for a very long time if not indefinitely. To be a free individual implies the right of association, which is to say that folks will and do make arbitrary choices to form groups, consume, employ, love, and play as they see fit to their own personnal valuations. Even so-called 'non-racists' freely discriminate everyday.

michael

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by The Dunedan, Secondly, I own a copy of the Turner Diaries. I bought it out of curiosity, more than anything else. Besides its contemptable racism and stupidity, it is a poorly-written, poorly-concieved piece of trash, with nothing of any tactical value to teach a Patriot. Please, before you compare me to something/someone, know of what you speak.

Good analysis, the only usefull tactics in it are things that would be really obvious, and I mean, like "duh!". I'm not goint to go into details, because I'm sure Home Sec is probably monitoring this site and I dont need a bunch of BATFE clowns airing out my house the fun way.

But yes, for all practical purposes, it is completely useless bullsh*t.

[madprophet]

I have read the Turner Diaries also (out of curiosity as well,) that's why I brought it up. I know what I am talking about. Only I didn't pay good money for it -- that's what libraries are for.