4 ms·

My position is governments can't be trusted with prohibiting citizens from owning firearms, so let's keep them around.

• solarkraft 9y ago
  My question: How the hell are you going to use your hand gun against a lot of pretty well trained soldiers with much better guns? Even in this very unlikely case your gun is going to be very useless. Maybe you could shoot yourself. The down side of having guns in many (dumb/unstable) people's hands is pretty well discussed already.
  • rbritton 9y ago
    That ignores the psychological factor and assumes those soldiers will just follow the order. I don't think that would be the case, particularly as they're the type of people that typically own multiple firearms personally.
    • supreme_sublime 9y ago
      Beyond that, it is like people have never heard of guerilla warfare. The United States is a vast area and lots of it is lightly inhabited. It would be very difficult to suppress an insurrection.
      • lmlsna 9y ago
        Wooolllvvveeerrrinnneesss!!!
  • rlt 9y ago
    This, and the "but the government has nukes" argument, assumes the only scenarios are "no resistance" or "all-out war". In reality there's likely a step function where even the possibility of some armed resistance would go a long way in dissuading a would-be tyrannical government, especially in this age where anyone can instantly broadcast video across the globe. That assumes a large enough portion of the population that wants to resist owns guns. I wish more liberals (especially groups likely to be persecuted) owned guns for this reason.