If we do wind up in some sort of civil conflict, I imagine it will look a lot like Ireland from the 60's to the 90's, which was by no means a good time.[0]
I've heard people jokingly say, "One side collects guns and the other collects mental disorders."
That's obviously an unfair shot but there's some truth to it.
Left leaning areas tend to be centered around city centers where right leaning areas tend to be rural and control things like shipping and food production.
The police and the military all have a noticeable conservative bend at least at the lower levels.
This wouldn't be a north vs south situation where each side would be roughly equally matched.
In a true right vs left civil war, at least as the politics line up right now, the right faction would win by simply isolating and choking off the cities.
Also, just because some guys in rural areas collect guns compulsively doesn't mean they are remotely capable of becoming an organized militia.
Plus, there's a lot that happens between farm to table in modern agriculture.
COVID showed us just how sensitive our lifestyle is to disruptions.
I don't think it makes sense to draw up a hypothetical war this way based on how interconnected and interdependent the economy is.
Firstly, a tremendous amount of American food is imported and threatening the food supply would draw the ire of Federal forces, which would be counter-productive to a militarized movement. Secondly, raw food ingredients tend to travel very far distances in order to be processed for consumption. If supply chains were disrupted this way, you'd have a lot of raw food going to waste that can't be consumed on its own (most commercially produced corn in the US cannot be eaten on its own because it's designed to be converted into corn syrup). Third, global shipping hubs and large airports tend to be in urban areas, not rural. Rural shipping centers tend to be secondary or tertiary.
> That's obviously an unfair shot but there's some truth to it.
No truth to it at all really. I'm pretty much a full-on socialist and I own firearms. In fact, I'm not sure I know anyone who doesn't own a firearm.
There are more firearms in the US than there are people, so what kind of fool honestly believes they are all in the hands of less than one half of the population?
Seeing as how only 30% of Americans own guns [0], all the guns are literally in the hands of less than one half. So it’s not foolish to believe that. But it’s true whether I believe it or not.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem...
But yes it would appear that "less than half the population" is actually correct.
I think this is the gist of of it, i.e. what the leaders of the forces holding the monopoly on violence really believe, no matter if the lower levels are right-leaning (and I agree with you on that). If the majority of those leaders (both at the federal and at the state level) are pretty much on the same page I don't see any chance of an actual civil war, no matter the actual political hatred between the civilian factions.
But, and it's a very, very big but, it those US military and police leaders were to get divided, like really divided, the same as it happened in Spain in 1936 with Franco, then all options are on the table. Again, I don't think there's any remote "chance" for that happening, but imo that's the only way a civil war can start (in the US and in most other places). If it matters I'm not a US citizen, but I am interested in US politics.
> POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?
> Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-m...