• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minority Rights

Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
7
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hi my name is Michael McMahon. A common argument against gun control is the threat of a tyrannical government. But is there any other defensive countermeasure?

The problem with having freely available guns without any background check is that armed civilians cannot protect themselves against snipers. With any gun such as a handgun or a shotgun it's possible to ambush a person and attack from behind or shoot from a concealed position. Unless one intends to spend the day darting to cover around every corner with a binoculars I fail to see how they can defend themselves. We literally don't have eyes on the back of our heads to guard against any sneaky assassin.

I was thinking one way to defend against a murderous government would be to use a military version of proportional representation. So, if a parliamentary party has 30% of the vote they'd have complete 30% control of the military. If another party has 60% of the vote they'd then be granted 60% command of the military with their own autonomous military bases and units. And so on. This would give minorities a better organisational and logistical capacity to deter or defect and thwart a tyranny.

Obviously hate speech laws can be used to prevent any violent and extremist candidate or group from running for office to prevent them gaining military representation.

What would you think of this idea?
 

Rogue Valley

Facta Non Verba
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
63,245
Reaction score
47,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stay off the shrooms.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
5,976
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hi my name is Michael McMahon. A common argument against gun control is the threat of a tyrannical government. But is there any other defensive countermeasure?

The problem with having freely available guns without any background check is that armed civilians cannot protect themselves against snipers. With any gun such as a handgun or a shotgun it's possible to ambush a person and attack from behind or shoot from a concealed position. Unless one intends to spend the day darting to cover around every corner with a binoculars I fail to see how they can defend themselves. We literally don't have eyes on the back of our heads to guard against any sneaky assassin.

I was thinking one way to defend against a murderous government would be to use a military version of proportional representation. So, if a parliamentary party has 30% of the vote they'd have complete 30% control of the military. If another party has 60% of the vote they'd then be granted 60% command of the military with their own autonomous military bases and units. And so on. This would give minorities a better organisational and logistical capacity to deter or defect and thwart a tyranny.

Obviously hate speech laws can be used to prevent any violent and extremist candidate or group from running for office to prevent them gaining military representation.

What would you think of this idea?

Welcome to the forums.

Conceal and carry can be a deterrent against crimes of opportunity. A mugger/burglar might be less inclined to victimize you if there is a chance you are armed. You are correct that if someone specifically wants you dead, having immediate access to a firearm is unlikely to protect you, nor would them NOT having access to a firearm protect you for that matter.

And I've never met a current or former member of the US military who would ever intentionally open fire on innocent American citizens. I don't believe government tyranny is an immediate concern in this day and age. Crimes of opportunity like burglary and robbery certainly are.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
7
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hi again.

One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic. So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first. This could turn robberies into armed robberies. Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.

In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,666
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the US keep the niggers down thats all that matter
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,338
Reaction score
1,758
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
=Michael McMahon;1069922058]Hi again.
One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic.
Which is why I would use a gun. Right off I can't think of a fast litmus test.
So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first.
So if the criminal is psychopathic and armed are you ready to roll those dice double or nothing? I'm not.
This could turn robberies into armed robberies.
You just said psycho and armed. If he/she has the gun in hand or in the front of their pants it's still armed.
Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.
Again not ready to bet the farm on it. One life is all you get so you make the call.
In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.
Yeah there's a lot of truth in that.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,666
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
flogger I don't know what your problem is but we have enough as it is. Now across The Big Water that may be considered funny
here it's considered rude.

Over here when assessing your societies inbult predjudicies its simply considered true :wink:
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
21,545
Reaction score
10,438
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Over here when assessing your societies inbult predjudicies its simply considered true :wink:

Well we don't really care for your society's inbuilt prejudices over here in america. We disliked the idea so much we went to war with each other over the issue and guess what, the white supremacists lost. Hatred never wins it only destroys.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
5,976
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hi again.

One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic. So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first. This could turn robberies into armed robberies. Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.

In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.

True. But the same could be said for psychopathic criminals who would rather not get into a fist fight either. Instead of risking a broken nose, he might just knife me right away and take my wallet in safety as I bleed out.

And I have no problem with civilian victims shooting unarmed criminals if they fear for their life, which most do. This is highly effective in reducing crimes of opportunity, and killing in self-defense is a justifiable homicide.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
7
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well knives are contact weapons which makes it significantly harder for a criminal to ambush someone. Whatever about the legality of contact weapons, guns are a lot more dangerous.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,666
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well knives are contact weapons which makes it significantly harder for a criminal to ambush someone. Whatever about the legality of contact weapons, guns are a lot more dangerous.

Indeed. If knives and cutting implements were deemed that lethal guns would never have been invented :wink:

Guns make killing far too easy as US society bears witness

If only they cared about that :roll:
 
Last edited:

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
5,976
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well knives are contact weapons which makes it significantly harder for a criminal to ambush someone. Whatever about the legality of contact weapons, guns are a lot more dangerous.

When used for the wrong reasons, you're absolutely right. They are a lot less dangerous than drinkable alcohol, of course.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,666
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When used for the wrong reasons, you're absolutely right. They are a lot less dangerous than drinkable alcohol, of course.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that response ..... I'm intrigued ?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
5,976
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Could you perhaps elaborate on that response ..... I'm intrigued ?

About 40,000 people are killed annually by firearms in the U.S. Almost 90,000 are killed in alcohol related deaths.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,338
Reaction score
1,758
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
=flogger;1069934096]Indeed. If knives and cutting implements were deemed that lethal guns would never have been invented
:wink:
Then apparently sharp sticks weren't good enough.;)
Guns make killing far too easy as US society bears witness
So then how many tens of millions were shot today?
If only they cared about that :roll:
Oh we care,but you only seem to care to want to hear one side of the story.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,338
Reaction score
1,758
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well knives are contact weapons which makes it significantly harder for a criminal to ambush someone. Whatever about the legality of contact weapons, guns are a lot more dangerous.
Wait till someone slides up next to you all casual like and slides a 7-8" dagger up under your ribs. You will have been easily ambushed and silently.:eek:
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,666
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
About 40,000 people are killed annually by firearms in the U.S. Almost 90,000 are killed in alcohol related deaths.

I suspect the alcohol deaths are self inflicted unlike the gun murders :wink:
 
Last edited:

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,590
Reaction score
5,976
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I suspect the alcohol deaths are self inflicted unlike the gun murders :wink:

Actually, the vast majority if those 40,000 people killed by firearms are suicides.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
258,363
Reaction score
78,706
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually, the vast majority if those 40,000 people killed by firearms are suicides.

We have to make the penalties for committing suicide, more severe, in order to cut down on those numbers








:roll:
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
7
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Debaters often cite the black market. But search warrants could help hinder the black market. Besides, a lot of the black market consists of stolen guns that were once legally held.

There's gunrunning but that can be intercepted by the military.

The army could distribute weapons to civilians if there's an imminent threat of foreign invasion. Just instead of everyone being constantly armed.

Banning close combat weapons would be difficult as they are legal in certain contexts. For instance criminals could easily hide kitchen knives.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
7
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Another safeguard against tyranny would be to allow minority groups to wear a different uniform in the army. The uniform alerts others as to whose side they're on. It's not legalising defection but merely a precaution. In fact seperate uniforms are probably legal under free speech.
 
Top Bottom