[TheAceOfHearts]

Most Americans have guns. The police has better weapons, but it would be a war of attrition, and I doubt most police would want to go on killing sprees against their fellow countrymen.

Although I doubt it'd reach the point of massive insurrection. That would require a total loss of trust in the government, and I think we're still far from that.

[code_duck]

How old is the average American gun owner? Are they physically fit?

Merely owning guns is different than possessing the physical ability and training in weapons and tactics to use them effectively, especially versus military or paramilitary forces (National Guard and Border Patrol is a much more likely initial pro-government force than police). Not only are they equipped and trained with the same weapons civilians may have, they also have automatic weapons, nightvision, grenades, armored vehicles, helicopters, tear gas, sonic weapons, fire trucks, and a lot more.

[Rescis]

Keep in mind that the very modern, very well funded, and very well equipped US military has been fighting a bunch of dudes with rifles and IED's for the past several dozen years without conclusive victories or signs of the resistance slowing.

That US military is also neither attacking its own citizens it has filial and friendly ties with, nor attacking people who look and talk like it.

Modern armor and missiles don't accomplish much when the enemies main goal is to just live as they want to (instead of conquer territory or resources).

[nostrademons]

To be fair, the U.S. military is very effective against the individual people they are fighting at any given moment. Kill ratios in recent conflicts are of the order of 100:1. It's just that for every insurgent you kill, you create 10 more. Unless your goal is to just depopulate the rest of the globe (something I wonder about, given recent U.S. foreign policy), you can't actually win this war without addressing the conditions that lead people to hate the U.S. in the first place.

[AtlasBarfed]

Open rebellion in the US would tank its credit rating and foreign investment, which is the only thing keeping it afloat.

No sane country would lend us money to wage war on our own people/economic infrastructure.

And mass insurrection would disrupt the supply chain. Nothing is warehoused these days, so the country would fall apart.

Maybe I'm a pessimist. Maybe I should start digging my shelter.

[FussyZeus]

In every instance throughout history, the $weapon wielded by the peasant has been vastly inferior to the one wielded by the noble's army, guards, etc. In fact one could argue that the peasantry has never been less outgunned that they are currently, when previous uprisings made do with sticks and rocks, and the heads of the wealthy still rolled in the end.

The fact is that the select few protect themselves with rolls of the sons and daughters of the masses. Sure, plenty of them will turn their weapons on their fellow countrymen for a paycheck, but how many? And for how long?

And especially once those bullets start flying, how useful is the money being paid to those guards? How long before they have all the money they could ever want and no one will sell them food?

In our hyper-connected world, we lose people jobs when they crack a racist joke on twitter. How hard will it be to find the 1%'s executioners?

[code_duck]

It’s hard to be sure exactly what scenario people are picturing when they speculate about this. If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won. As far as the rest of the theorizing, we would have to be on common ground about the entire scenario before it’s worth speculating about.

For example, I don’t know what food you’re talking about because in my wild fantasy scenario, all of the freeways have been destroyed and Walmarts and grocery stores are empty. Mass starvation, plague, panic, electricity is off, no communication systems work other than the military. They have seized anything useful. They have tanks etc, which helps a lot. As far as ‘who will sell them food’... you’re talking about a highly armed military force fighting a civil war? Do you think people are going shopping at Kroger with the other side or something? This isn’t the French Revolution. This is 80 years after millions of people died in gas chambers in Europe, right? The next major wars are not going to be very friendly.

[pm90]

People can be extremely resilient, especially when their lives are at hand. I don't think you've thought this through. A true civil war where the US military is fighting its own citizens won't be like the Iraq war at all. There is likely to be mass defection of soldiers who are unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Massive civil disobedience where taxpayers stop paying their taxes, farmers defect to the sides that they most recognize with.

Its not a scenario that I really want to think about since its so brutal. But it can happen, and the war is likely to be a prolonged battle.

Not to mention, the unrest in the Motherland will let other rogue forces run amok internationally as they jostle for supremacy over each other. I can't see any of that ending well.

[chii]

That's not the worst scenario.

If the govt or millitary hold so much tech that you end up in a hunger game scenario, and the population is oppressed (but unlike hunger games, the oppression comes in the form of feeble food and entertainment - ala, bread and circus).

The people feel comfortable enough to not want to revolt. Yet, ignores the minority that do get harsher treatment, because doing so puts their own lively hood in jeopardy.

[FussyZeus]

Well I was specifically speaking in very broad terms. I don't know what a Civil War in the modern US will look like and I hope to Christ or whoever else is running this thing that it doesn't come to that.

I think though that far beyond contemplating who is shooting at who with what, the more interesting question is what does victory look like for the 1%? Just shoot everyone who complains until there's nothing but peaceful staff left?

If you're talking an actual war of attrition between the classes in the US, you'd be crazy to bet on the rich. It's not even a question of "if" they can win, their win condition DOES NOT EXIST and cannot exist. The more disgruntled people who are killed, the more people become disgruntled, until you have the entirety of the damn country saying "wait a minute, why am I shooting my fellow citizens because Mr. Bezos wants a 10th house?"

If this gets to a place of violence, and if the Rich of today allow it to get to that place, they have assured their own destruction, it's simply a matter of time. The best thing they could be doing right now is supporting measures to help out the common people, if for no other reason than their money cannot stop the torches.

Edit: I'm rambling a bit here but I guess my counterpoint basically boils down to: let's assume that the Rich get full control of the US Military and it's assets to end civil insurrection and restore economic order. How do they do it? What orders do they give? Where do they send the missiles to dismantle the resistance? Which neighborhoods get power cut? Who gets banned from twitter? And how does it end?

I'm just not seeing a way that such a conflict would end where Amazon (or anyone else) could simply resume business as usual.

[nostrademons]

I think a modern U.S. Civil War will look a lot like Syria. Once social order collapses, you'll get a bunch of different armed factions all pursuing their own social agenda. Remember that the 99% generally hates each other a lot more than they hate the rich; I can't imagine a Nazi from North Carolina, an Evangelical from Arkansas, a proud Southerner from Alabama, a blue-collar Irish Catholic from Boston, a cattle-rancher from Montana, a Jewish doctor from NYC, a poor urban black from Atlanta, and a Californian tech-worker all fighting on the same side.

Any conflict where the U.S. disintegrates will likely spread worldwide, too, as other nations take advantage of the power vacuum to press their own claims. So emigration is unlikely to be a solution for people who wish to remain neutral.

The endgame for the 1% is likely to become lords or petty kings of little feudal domains. They may offer to provide security services to their employees in exchange for economic service. They wouldn't be global titans of industry, but they'd be heads of their little fiefdoms. The smart ones will avoid major military action, instead only clearing the local area around their corporate offices of populist insurgents. If the insurgents want to fight other insurgent groups, that's their business; they can all kill each other off.

[lev99]

I suspect national guard forces would make the backbone of several armed factions.

Endgame for the 1% is being in a position to gain the spoils of war and to take less damage than your competition.

[JetSpiegel]

> If you want an example of urban warfare vs. a modern military, check out Iraq about 10 year ago. While it was difficult, for them, guess who won.

Sure, Shock and Awe was successful, but it was nothing more than a raid. The US Army did not conquer Iraq, at least on the medium term. They barely control most of the territory.

[baud147258]

For the French Revolution, the King refused to used the army against the people. And the revolutionary had the support of some of the rich and powerful

[lev99]

An attempt to overthrow the government is handled by the military, not the police. The military has more guns, better supply lines, and better discipline than police forces.

[prolikewh0a]

It would be terrible to see the military killing its own citizens in defense of a corrupt government that doesn't work for those citizens.

[lev99]

It would be far from the first time that has happened in history.

[prolikewh0a]

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if history repeated itself.

[code_duck]

It’s easy though, just tell them they are undocumented Mexican transsexuals who voted for Obama.

[paulie_a]

Most Americans don't have guns. Gun owners are a minority with a very loud voice.

[e12e]

One in three households or thereabouts. It's certainly not "most" - but not sure "vocal minority" is accurate either?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/ameri...

[dragonwriter]

Minority generally means “less than half”. In some contexts, with a non-binary trait, it may mean “smaller than the largest group”, with the largest group being a “majority” if it is greater than 50%, and a “plurality” if it is not.

33% on a binary trait (one either does or does not own at least one gun) is clearly a minority.

[bobwaycott]

So that’s 33%—of households, not people—at best. Definitely a minority—a minority that appears to be growing even smaller if the trends continue. They’re definitely vocal.

What part of calling them a vocal minority seems inaccurate?

[e12e]

I guess I'm not used to such a large group being seen as a "minority". Isn't the breakdown in US elections roughly 1 in 3 (or 1 in 4) Democrat, Republican and other (independent / didn't vote)?

[paulie_a]

A house hold often includes more than one person. Those other individuals are not gun owners. Gun owners are a fairly small group with a very powerful lobby that needs to be ignored.

[e12e]

This (and the sibling) strikes me as an odd interpretation - there are more guns than people in the US - most households with any guns, have more than one gun. And as I see it living in a household with guns, generally means access to guns?

So I readily read one in three households, as strictly more than one in three persons - have access to guns?

[dragonwriter]

> So I readily read one in three households, as strictly more than one in three persons

That's a bad reading. Even if everyone in a household with a gun owner have access to guns, that would mean 33% of households implies exactly 33% of people if gun ownership is distributed among households with no bias by household size. It doesn't imply more than 33% of people unless gun owning households are larger than non-gun-owning households.

[imtringued]

Why even care about this meaningless distinction? Households can give other households guns. What's important is if there are enough guns and ammunition for every person, not how they are distributed unless it's extremely skewed to a very specific part of the population.

[ntsplnkv2]

Just because you don't personally own a gun doesn't mean you're also against owning guns.

[paulie_a]

And that is not relevant, either you own a gun or you don't. Americans by and large don't own one.

[ntsplnkv2]

Only if we're talking about gun ownership, which you did not do. You brought up the gun lobby. It's relevant because you equate gun owners only to the gun lobby.

There are many non-gun owners that are without a doubt for owning guns.

[pazimzadeh]

30% of Americans have guns http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-o...

[Infernal]

I wonder how much of the privately owned land area of the US is owned by Americans who own guns?