5 ms·
It really depends on the sample - if you look over the last 100 years the picture really changes. You'll find massive government killings of their own unarmed c
by benjohnson 10y ago
It really depends on the sample - if you look over the last 100 years the picture really changes. You'll find massive government killings of their own unarmed citizens.
- daenney 10y agoYet would those massive government killings of their own citizens not have happened if those citizens had guns? There are plenty of methods a government can use to kill large swaths of its population without ever coming in contact with said population, even a 100 years ago.
- JBReefer 10y agoThe strongest military on Earth couldn't defeat a bunch of illiterate people with 40 year old guns in terrain they knew well.
- daenney 10y agoSo we'll just forget about (atomic) bombs that we drop from the sky, gasses and other biological agents, cutting them off from necessary resources like water (or poisoning it) and food and so on? The strongest military in the world could probably just outlast them. Might take another 100 years though.
- 15155 10y agoAnti-firearms people love to imply that weapons of mass destruction and other exotic shit would be used to quell uprisings in an American Revolution-style event. "You can't stop planes and tanks with a rifle, therefore the Second Amendment is useless!" Small arms seemed to work just fine in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
- kbenson 10y agoPersonally, I think it would be more useful to ban (or make harder to get) handguns than automatic weapons. In almost all the legitimate uses of guns I can think of, rifles and shotguns work just fine. Easily concealed firearms are the problem. Make those more problematic to own and buy.