You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
118

[–] frenemy 2 points 118 points (+120|-2) ago 

to your points:

  1. guns are a form of protection. it doesn't matter how much body armor you are wearing. you will get dead unless you make the armed person dead. fire enough bullets and i promise more then a few will go right through your armor.

  2. they are the ultimate form of self defense. 'leave me alone or i will kill you' is a fairly convincing argument. criminals don't follow the law, if you hadn't noticed. taking guns will only disarm law abiding citizens, leaving every gun in the hands of criminals. take a look at chicago then remake that line of thought.

  3. very doubtful. 380 million civilians vs 1.4 million troops. it's not even a contest unless they start dropping nukes.

  4. you're saying because maybe someone aside from the rapist might get injured, that a person has no right to use deadly force to protect themselves... that's asinine. with that line of thought, tasers wouldn't be allowed either, as they do cause death. a persons options drop to get raped quietly or get raped while screaming. sounds like a shitty place to live.

  5. maybe, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. all you can do is make sure everyone is on equal footing.

1
35

[–] epsilona01 1 points 35 points (+36|-1) ago  (edited ago)

More on point 4:

Guns are an equalizer. The 300lb person (with a gun) is now no longer that much more powerful than the 100lb person with a gun. The 100lb person now stands a much better chance than if neither had weapons.

1
12

[–] AOU 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

More on point 4:

Mayo dumpsters are easy targets.

1
6

[–] huhha 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Furthermore, it's not a game of total annihilation. Which is why even after yanks steamrolling sand countries the muj in jammies are still having a grand old time.

0
5

[–] frenemy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

to be fair, we've been taking out country leaders at a rather impressive pace. this leaves local warlords, which we're fine with just controlling right now. take afghanistan. farmers grow opium poppies, us soldiers guard the poppies, warlords pick up the raw opium paste and refine for out of country sale. crazy right?

0
1

[–] 6951316? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The lack of heavy weaponry owned by citizens would present a serious obstacle for citizens fighting the government. Besides that I agree.

0
10

[–] TheKobold 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Home made bombs and guerilla tactics go a long way.

0
4

[–] frenemy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

not at 270 to 1, and the 1 not really having the stomach to gun down the citizens they signed up to protect. nukes would be the only way. then you've hit fuck it levels already anyway.

4
-3

[–] qzxq 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

380 million civilians vs 1.4 million troops. it's not even a contest unless they start dropping nukes.

Think Force multipliers

nifty list here

http://listverse.com/2016/01/22/10-shocking-and-bizarre-riot-control-weapons-from-around-the-world/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyLIrSjxI

among other things which should give you pause.

0
2

[–] frenemy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i'm well aware. it's still no contest when people get down to the business of killing one another. all that fancy gear is in rebel hands in a night sneak attack, for example.