4 ms·
Yeah but I think I'll accept some low chance of tyranny for not getting shot in the face. Reckon I can handle dealing with the tyranny if it pops up, honest.
by scarejunba 7y ago
Yeah but I think I'll accept some low chance of tyranny for not getting shot in the face. Reckon I can handle dealing with the tyranny if it pops up, honest.
- hanniabu 7y agoThe founding fathers would disagree
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- shpongled 7y agoI feel the exact opposite way - I'd rather risk the minuscule chance of being randomly shot than risk tyranny. Far, far more citizens were killed by their own governments each year in the 20th century (Some 2+ million) [1] than are killed by mass shootings (< 50) [2] or all guns [3] in the US every year. More people are killed with hands and fists, or with knives, or hammers than are killed with AR-15s, AK-47s or any other rifle in the United States every single year [3], yet we don't call for bans on those? By the statistics, even if widespread gun ownership only has a 0.0001% chance of preventing tyranny every year then it seems worth it Furthermore, how do you reckon you would deal with tyranny, if not with arms? [1] https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM [2] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-... [3] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-20 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...