4 ms·

You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-

You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-studio-is-worst-mass-killing-since-2001.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-... Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)

MobileVet 7y ago
> magazine limits are political theater imho Wow. Seriously? The best chance of subduing (by any means) an attacker is when they aren’t actively shooting at you. That only happens when they need to stop to reload or change weapons.
- jrnichols 7y ago
  I would agree that it's political theater. A few of the shootings, the criminal didn't empty the magazine anyway. (I'm purposely not mentioning the shooters names or the incident.) Others, the criminal simply carried extra "California legal" magazines or extra firearms. Reloading time is negligible. There are many youtube videos showing this. It takes no time to switch to a different weapon.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
acdha 7y ago
Firearms; the support of a large fraction of the population, government, and army; and an occupying force which is trying to avoid excessive casualties. In most cases, an oppressive government looks more like Russia, China, Syria, etc. where the power imbalance is insurmountable. If it ever comes to a civil war in the U.S. it’s going to depend on those factors, not a bunch of 18th century LARPers.
klez 7y ago
In my humble, outsider (i.e.: non-US) opinion, when weapons get involved (on any side), things escalate. In other words, would something like the Kent University massacre have gone differently if protesters were armed (not considering the ideological weirdness of such a scenario)? I see what's good in the argument that people should be able to respond to tyranny with force, but I'm wondering how often this could actually happen on such a big scale that it would matter instead of being crushed by the State in a matter of hours or days, at best. And I furthermore wonder whether weapons being legal would matter much in such a situation.

MobileVet 7y ago

> magazine limits are political theater imho Wow. Seriously? The best chance of subduing (by any means) an attacker is when they aren’t actively shooting at you. That only happens when they need to stop to reload or change weapons.

jrnichols 7y ago
I would agree that it's political theater. A few of the shootings, the criminal didn't empty the magazine anyway. (I'm purposely not mentioning the shooters names or the incident.) Others, the criminal simply carried extra "California legal" magazines or extra firearms. Reloading time is negligible. There are many youtube videos showing this. It takes no time to switch to a different weapon.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

acdha 7y ago

Firearms; the support of a large fraction of the population, government, and army; and an occupying force which is trying to avoid excessive casualties. In most cases, an oppressive government looks more like Russia, China, Syria, etc. where the power imbalance is insurmountable. If it ever comes to a civil war in the U.S. it’s going to depend on those factors, not a bunch of 18th century LARPers.

klez 7y ago

In my humble, outsider (i.e.: non-US) opinion, when weapons get involved (on any side), things escalate. In other words, would something like the Kent University massacre have gone differently if protesters were armed (not considering the ideological weirdness of such a scenario)? I see what's good in the argument that people should be able to respond to tyranny with force, but I'm wondering how often this could actually happen on such a big scale that it would matter instead of being crushed by the State in a matter of hours or days, at best. And I furthermore wonder whether weapons being legal would matter much in such a situation.