3 ms·

Shooting firearms is definitely not the only way to retaliate against an oppressive government.

bassman9000 9y ago
But is is one way. If government was to turn tyrannical, an armed society would have a chance to defend itself. but the government has drones Boots on the ground. Try to control a subcontinent of 325M people with drones and planes, when every corner could have an armed citizen. Ask the vietcong, or the afghani, how much they could do with small firearms. "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." edit: grammar
- realandreskytt 9y ago
  I guess that encapsulates the difference in attitude perfectly. Very real consequences in terms of people dead vs. something that might happen in the future and where guns might help. Do you fear the future or not. By the way, the article does its own share of data-wrangling by happily omitting the kinds of guns people own and how. In US one can simply buy an assault rifle. Down in Europe you need training, screening and physical exams of your home to get a gun. Both count as “a gun owned”
  - bassman9000 9y ago
    something that might happen in the future and where guns might help. So because something it's unlikely to happen you shouldn't take steps to protect you against it? Why having insurance, for instance?
  - MatthaeusHarris 9y ago
    Read all the way through to the third article. It does go into which kinds of guns are used in homicides, which is much easier data to come by (and perhaps more relevant to the concerns at hand).
- maxerickson 9y ago
  How many modern insurgents have been citizen owners of legal weapons and how many have been armed after they decided to fight? I think the example isn't instructive as to the importance of widespread ownership. If there is a large group that wants to raise hell for a government, they will be able to obtain weapons.

But is is one way. If government was to turn tyrannical, an armed society would have a chance to defend itself. but the government has drones Boots on the ground. Try to control a subcontinent of 325M people with drones and planes, when every corner could have an armed citizen. Ask the vietcong, or the afghani, how much they could do with small firearms. "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." edit: grammar

realandreskytt 9y ago
I guess that encapsulates the difference in attitude perfectly. Very real consequences in terms of people dead vs. something that might happen in the future and where guns might help. Do you fear the future or not. By the way, the article does its own share of data-wrangling by happily omitting the kinds of guns people own and how. In US one can simply buy an assault rifle. Down in Europe you need training, screening and physical exams of your home to get a gun. Both count as “a gun owned”
- bassman9000 9y ago
  something that might happen in the future and where guns might help. So because something it's unlikely to happen you shouldn't take steps to protect you against it? Why having insurance, for instance?
- MatthaeusHarris 9y ago
  Read all the way through to the third article. It does go into which kinds of guns are used in homicides, which is much easier data to come by (and perhaps more relevant to the concerns at hand).
maxerickson 9y ago
How many modern insurgents have been citizen owners of legal weapons and how many have been armed after they decided to fight? I think the example isn't instructive as to the importance of widespread ownership. If there is a large group that wants to raise hell for a government, they will be able to obtain weapons.