3 ms·
A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you
by mitt_romney_12 3y ago
A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you
- dcow 3y agoYou might be surprised how much a group of armed citizens can do against a police squad. I don't think “you’ll never protect yourself from the gov’t” is an accurate angle.
- watwut 3y agoThey can't do nothing and if they try, they will go to prison forever.
- hellojesus 3y agoIn the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.
- watwut 3y agoGangs are that resistance and they are not winning. In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up. Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.
- hellojesus 3y agoThe gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico. If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.
- watwut 3y ago> If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment. That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.
- baremetal 3y agoTell that to the Mexican government.
- hellojesus 3y agoRevolutions have succeeded in the past. It is an unlikely outcome but possible. My original point was that there is utility in having an armed populace because it requires government agents to evaluate the risk of infringing actions more heavily. Even if the citizens lose, nobody wants to be a casualty in they're resistance.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time. It succeeds plenty. The list of successful coups by paramilitary groups is loooooong. Hell, the Nazis started essentially as a gang.
- watwut 3y agoThey did not won the way OP suggests.
- ceejayoz 3y agoTemporarily. In the long run? Nah. Eventually the APCs roll in.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- baremetal 3y agoIn the long run they will run out of jackboots willing to risk not coming home to their families at the end of the day.
- sangnoir 3y agoHow are your guns going to help you when the police helicopters drop incendiary bombs on your house (or compound) at 3AM?
- wolverine876 3y agoWhen has this actually happened? I think you'd find only very rare exceptions. It's a fantasy. And it's destructive for the community to replace rule of law with rule of whoever-has-more-guns.
- moretrashplz 3y ago[flagged]
- rascul 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
- test098 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile
- kthejoker2 3y agoLol the Bundys only "survived" because 80% of the cops out there are on their side. Give me a break, them having guns in no way prevented LE from doing what they wanted.