- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,396
- Reaction score
- 123
- 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?
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 funnyIn the US keep the niggers down thats all that matter
Which is why I would use a gun. Right off I can't think of a fast litmus test.=Michael McMahon;1069922058]Hi again.
One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic.
So if the criminal is psychopathic and armed are you ready to roll those dice double or nothing? I'm not.So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first.
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.This could turn robberies into armed robberies.
Again not ready to bet the farm on it. One life is all you get so you make the call.Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.
Yeah there's a lot of truth in that.In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Could you perhaps elaborate on that response ..... I'm intrigued ?
Then apparently sharp sticks weren't good enough.=flogger;1069934096]Indeed. If knives and cutting implements were deemed that lethal guns would never have been invented
:wink:
So then how many tens of millions were shot today?Guns make killing far too easy as US society bears witness
Oh we care,but you only seem to care to want to hear one side of the story.If only they cared about that :roll:
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.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.
About 40,000 people are killed annually by firearms in the U.S. Almost 90,000 are killed in alcohol related deaths.
I hope you don't mean 40,000 "gun murders".I suspect the alcohol deaths are self inflicted unlike the gun murders :wink:
I hope you don't mean 40,000 "gun murders".
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?