Minority Rights

[Rich2018]

“Keeter is a guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band. Hours before Jason Aldean's show was shattered by gunfire and bullets rained on a crowd of some 22,000 people, Keeter had played on the same stage... And despite having their own weapons, they were unable to defend themselves.

Is this sarcasm ?

Are you arguing for police snipers in helicopters at every public event ?

Sadly this horrific event shows utterly ineffective handguns are against snipers.

Body armor is better

“A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws.”
-Wikipedia

A kind of police state ?

The bare minimum role of a government is to at least fulfill the defensive needs of its citizens. This is regardless of any economic and social policies. Otherwise there would be anarchy due to criminals or indeed the threat of foreign invasion....

So the current rate of more than one mass shooting a day, illustrates hoe Trump's government is failing us ?

No individual can ever single-handedly dismantle a tyranny.

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't think so

People must instead use democratic procedures to prevent tyranny in the military and, by extension, the government.

What process would a real "tyrant" be forced to adhere to ?

“The Nazi gun control argument is a belief that gun regulations in the Third Reich helped to facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust.”

So those believing in it are expecting the UK, Australia and Canada to launch a joint did for global domination sometime soon ?

I think adequate representation of minorities and political opponents within the military along with hate speech laws would help prevent evil regimes. Hitler’s rise to power underscores the need for democratic safeguards more so than arming any civilians.

How do you integrate political opposition into the military ?

 

[Michael McMahon]

Rich2018: “Is this sarcasm ? Are you arguing for police snipers in helicopters at every public event ?”
No. I was pointing out the huge inherent difficulties with widely available guns as I stated in the very first opening post. It’s in fact the infeasibility of everyone having their own personal air-support team to cover you that I was getting at.

Rich2018: “A kind of police state ?”
No. A police state is “a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities”. The government already provides military and police security. What I was saying is that irrespective of whatever your views are on taxes or, let’s say public health policy, everyone will have to at minimum agree with the government’s right to have an army. Some libertarians might view redistributive taxes as excessive but even they must compromise and agree with the state funding the police. The military can’t depend solely on private military companies without having it’s own state-funded military. The police has to hire it’s own staff or else everyone would require their own private bodyguards. If a victim couldn’t fund a private detective then criminals would get away. Large swathes of the country would descend into gangland no-go areas and the country would be unstable. Hence no matter what your political opinions are one must agree to the state’s “monopoly on violence”:
“The capacity of a state is often measured in terms of its fiscal and legal capacity. Fiscal capacity meaning the state's ability to recover taxation to provide public goods, and legal capacity meaning the state's supremacy as sole arbiter of conflict resolution and contract enforcement. Without some sort of coercion, the state would not otherwise be able to enforce its legitimacy in its desired sphere of influence... In regions where state presence is minimally felt, non-state actors can use their monopoly of violence to establish legitimacy and order. For example, the Sicilian Mafia originated as a protection racket providing buyers and sellers in the black market with protection.” - Wikipedia
That being said there are a small few countries that opt not to have an army like Iceland. But they’d still have a police force. Society itself is like a defence pact where an attack on one is an attack on all lest criminals escape with impunity. But I digress.

Rich2018: “Lee Harvey Oswald didn't think so”.
Yes; tyranny is a vaguely defined term and can be quite subjective. That’s why I mentioned in previous posts that any decision to fight a tyranny must be made collectively to negate the threat of lone-wolf terrorists.

Rich2018:”What process would a real "tyrant" be forced to adhere to ?”
If they aren’t already in power then hate speech laws can be used to stop them by either disbanding their entire political party or imprisoning them. But once they’re in power it might be too late for hate speech laws to work as they can subvert the court system. Hitler did this with the Enabling Act 1933. At this stage military defections would be required to forcibly overthrow the government.

Rich2018: “How do you integrate political opposition into the military ?”
Please refer to my previous posts: democratic elections for flag officers, free speech and free association in the military, increased decentralisation...

 

[Rich2018]

No. I was pointing out the huge inherent difficulties with widely available guns as I stated in the very first opening post. It’s in fact the infeasibility of everyone having their own personal air-support team to cover you that I was getting at.

You should learn how to use the quote function

So it really was sarcasm

No. A police state is “a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities”. The government already provides military and police security. What I was saying is that irrespective of whatever your views are on taxes or, let’s say public health policy, everyone will have to at minimum agree with the government’s right to have an army. Some libertarians might view redistributive taxes as excessive but even they must compromise and agree with the state funding the police. The military can’t depend solely on private military companies without having it’s own state-funded military. The police has to hire it’s own staff or else everyone would require their own private bodyguards. If a victim couldn’t fund a private detective then criminals would get away. Large swathes of the country would descend into gangland no-go areas and the country would be unstable. Hence no matter what your political opinions are one must agree to the state’s “monopoly on violence”:
“The capacity of a state is often measured in terms of its fiscal and legal capacity. Fiscal capacity meaning the state's ability to recover taxation to provide public goods, and legal capacity meaning the state's supremacy as sole arbiter of conflict resolution and contract enforcement. Without some sort of coercion, the state would not otherwise be able to enforce its legitimacy in its desired sphere of influence... In regions where state presence is minimally felt, non-state actors can use their monopoly of violence to establish legitimacy and order. For example, the Sicilian Mafia originated as a protection racket providing buyers and sellers in the black market with protection.” - Wikipedia
That being said there are a small few countries that opt not to have an army like Iceland. But they’d still have a police force. Society itself is like a defence pact where an attack on one is an attack on all lest criminals escape with impunity. But I digress.

I've read your post twice and can't tell what you're arguing for

Yes; tyranny is a vaguely defined term and can be quite subjective. That’s why I mentioned in previous posts that any decision to fight a tyranny must be made collectively to negate the threat of lone-wolf terrorists.

Tyrants generally discourage meetings regarding their fate

If they aren’t already in power then hate speech laws can be used to stop them by either disbanding their entire political party or imprisoning them. But once they’re in power it might be too late for hate speech laws to work as they can subvert the court system. Hitler did this with the Enabling Act 1933. At this stage military defections would be required to forcibly overthrow the government.

Tyrants always rely on the support of the military

Please refer to my previous posts: democratic elections for flag officers, free speech and free association in the military, increased decentralisation...

You want the military to elect it's senior commanders ?
Sorry, that is a crazy idea...you'd have the military commanded by politicians, like in China.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Rich2018: “You want the military to elect it's senior commanders ? Sorry, that is a crazy idea...you'd have the military commanded by politicians, like in China.
I wasn’t necessarily saying soldiers would elect their own commanders. Rather there’d be open elections that civilians could vote in. So for instance military officers who wanted to be ranked a general could compete against each other just likening a normal political election. They could. choose to align themselves with and be nominated by a certain political party or else run on an independent and non-aligned platform. It would then be up to the civilian electorate to vote and decide who goes into office.

When I mentioned this idea previously I got a reply from RaleBulgarian: “Members of both major parties do have a voice in the selection/promotion of flag officers (O7-O10). A flag officer board makes recommendations to the President, who then nominates individuals to the Senate for confirmation.”
However if ye are so confident in the impartiality of the military then the 2nd Amendment supporters shouldn’t use the anti-tyranny argument in favour of civilian gun ownership.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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?

I think the Romans tried something similar to what you are talking about, basically private armies controlled by wealthy aristocracy who ended up all choosing sides and fighting numerous civil wars for the control of the empire. Great plan. What happened to the Roman Empire?

 

[Rich2018]

I wasn’t necessarily saying soldiers would elect their own commanders. Rather there’d be open elections that civilians could vote in. So for instance military officers who wanted to be ranked a general could compete against each other just likening a normal political election. They could. choose to align themselves with and be nominated by a certain political party or else run on an independent and non-aligned platform. It would then be up to the civilian electorate to vote and decide who goes into office.

How would a civilian know who would make the best general ?

When I mentioned this idea previously I got a reply from RaleBulgarian: “Members of both major parties do have a voice in the selection/promotion of flag officers (O7-O10). A flag officer board makes recommendations to the President, who then nominates individuals to the Senate for confirmation.”
However if ye are so confident in the impartiality of the military then the 2nd Amendment supporters shouldn’t use the anti-tyranny argument in favour of civilian gun ownership.

Gun ownership doesn't come into it

For the sake of argument, if Trump declared martial law and suspended the Constitution, and the bulk of the military supported him
Gun owners could do nothing (aside from assassination and he'd be protected like any other tyrant).

 

[Michael McMahon]

Integrityrespec: 'private armies controlled by wealthy aristocracy'.
That doesn't sound democratic!

Integrityrespec:"What happened to the Roman Empire?"
The empire collapsed but of course from an anti-tyranny standpoint that was actually good. Ancient Rome was indeed an authoritarian and colonial country. So overall it would have been beneficial if generals going to war with each other hastened its downfall and ultimate defeat by the barbarians.

 

[Rich2018]

Integrityrespec: 'private armies controlled by wealthy aristocracy'.
That doesn't sound democratic!

Like the East India company's private army

Integrityrespec:"What happened to the Roman Empire?"
The empire collapsed but of course from an anti-tyranny standpoint that was actually good. Ancient Rome was indeed an authoritarian and colonial country. So overall it would have been beneficial if generals going to war with each other hastened its downfall and ultimate defeat by the barbarians.

That's one way of looking at it, another is that the Roman empire preserved civilization in the West.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Rich2018: “The military should be totally apolitical.”
Wikipedia: “While the civilian population of the United States is afforded the right to free expression under the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the notion that service members have a reduced level of free speech... “No officer or man in the armed forces has a right, be it constitutional, statutory or otherwise, to publish any information (or make any statement) which will imperil his unit or its cause.”
Ideally the military would be apolitical. But a nominally apolitical military is top-heavy as dissent is discouraged. So an oppressive government might be able to insidiously bias the army in its favour. There could be a problem of how a zealously neutral and apolitical army could rapidly mobilise itself to defeat a tyranny. This is because confronting a tyranny would be an intrinsically political action. I think allowing free speech in military would lend it greater resilience against any attempt at oppressive control. We must obviously forbid soldiers from expressing extremist and violent speech. But even dubious outliers often have opponents at the other end of the spectrum who are just as vociferous as they are. So there may end up being an overall regression to the apolitical mean. Although I’m not saying it will perfectly counterbalance itself. I just feel it would make it more elastically resistant to a potentially oppressive government.

Rich2018: “De-centralization is a modern term to explain how a sovereign entity can be governed.”
I presume a small-scale oppressive local council is less worse than a countrywide tyranny. Conversely a despotic national government could be defied by an alliance of smaller-scale municipalities.

“Murphy’s law: the principle that if it is possible for something to go wrong, it will go wrong” - dictionary
Owning a gun won’t be helpful if you’re attacked by an armed criminal on the one day you forget to bring it. That is why portability is important in the context of gun control. I imagine it would eventually become inconvenient to always have to carry around a heavy gun on the low chance you’ll be attacked that day by a criminal.
“A friendly sniper is generally the most effective counter-sniper tool.” - Wikipedia
I’m afraid long guns are unwieldy for casual citizens.

 

[Michael McMahon]

“However, of those who do put on the uniform, Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than two-to-one.”
The Few: Republicans join military 2-to-1 over Democrats
The electorate might be more attuned to the composition of the military and its possible impressionable nature if soldiers had increased free speech. This would help prevent any excessive representation of certain political groups in general.

“The increased militarization of police has occurred alongside a significant decline in public trust for law enforcement agencies”
Militarization of Police In the United States | Charles Koch Institute
I agree with the need for a cooperative and harmonious attitude through unarmed policing. But I suppose the armed military police might be required to tackle well-equipped gangs or terrorists. Of course, concealing soldiers inside military barracks won’t actually reduce their formidable strength. This is because if a tyrant was ever in charge, they could redeploy soldiers to the streets through martial law and rule with an iron fist. Hence the need for proper representation of minorities in the army.

 

[Michael McMahon]

“The idea is to acclimatize new recruits to the idea of following the leader to hell and back. When people are dying around you and your lieutenant tells you to "Take that hill!" then obedience and training are required for swift and efficient action.”
Military Obedience
Be that as it may, King Xerxes’ slave armies never fared too well in the Greco-Persian Wars. I think a better approach would be to imbue soldiers with righteous indignation at whatever their enemy’s unethical behaviour has been. So free speech in the military would also be justified through the psychological well-being of recruits and veterans and preventing PTSD.


“Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison.
However, the public outcry in the United States following this highly-publicized, controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning, Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.”
What to Know About Obeying an Unlawful Military Order
Tiger kidnappings are where a person is forced to commit a crime or else their relatives are killed. They are very sad and morally perplexing. It conjures up the trolley problem in philosophy (the dilemma of killing one person to save five others) and the issue of which is the lesser of two evils. But the contrast between these cases and soldiers wilfully obeying illegal orders only serves to highlight the passivity and amorality of these very soldiers. The charge of aiding and abetting crime can be applicable not only to gang members but also in war situations.


“There is plenty of evidence that mandatory military training of young people has enormous benefits for society.”
Compulsory military service for young people could be a force for good in Irish society
Why not conscript people who aren’t young males into munitions factories like the women of WW2 Britain? Or perhaps instead the individuals who advocate patriotic conscription could actually pay extra taxes to raise a volunteer army if the situation was deemed so dire.

 

[Michael McMahon]

“More Catalans oppose independence from Spain than support it, a poll showed on Friday - the first such result since before October 2017 when the region narrowly voted in favor of secession in a referendum that national authorities banned.” - Reuters

Separatism can be a peaceful and individualistic concept even though it has sometimes been the source of historical conflict. This is because separatism wouldn’t impinge on the security rights of the inhabitants who identified with the previous larger nation. Separatism per se seems to relate to economic and cultural issues more than matters of military defence. For example, if hypothetically 40% of people in Barcelona were more proud of being Spanish they’d still have around 40% of the representation in any new Catalan police force or military. Keep in mind that a major city like Barcelona has an enormous hinterland outside of Catalonia. They’d still need transport links from Spain, workers from commuter belts, a military defence alliance, agricultural and industrial trade with Spain, etc.. So a major city wouldn’t just sever all links with a country even if it was granted greater autonomy.

“How far separatist demands will go toward full independence, and whether groups pursue constitutional and nonviolent action or armed violence, depend on a variety of economic, political, social and cultural factors, including movement leadership and the government's response.” -Wikipedia

 

[Michael McMahon]

Fledermaus: “Minorities are over represented in the US military.”

Yes. I’m not suggesting that soldiers ranked private are just pawns! They have the ability to resist illegal commands. But minority members ranked as officers could further assist in preventing tyranny. They could mobilise their troops in the unlikely event of a persecutory regime.

African-Americans Are Highly Visible in the Military, but Almost Invisible at the Top (Published 2020)

Seventy-five years after integration, the military’s upper echelons remain the domain of white men.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

“Hypothetically, standing up a 700-man Sikh regiment would boost national unity, patriotism, and all that good stuff... But given the U.K.’s colonial past, creating an ethnically and religiously homogenous Army regiment is likely to do more harm than good, harkening back to an imperial era that has long since passed... Fostering an institutional culture of acceptance within the British armed forces, rather than bending to underlying discrimination, is the best way to address this problem from within.”

The British plan to organize a regiment around a religion: Perhaps an imperial solution to a contemporary problem

Back in February, several Members of Parliament began urging the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence to stand up a Sikh regiment in the U.K. Army.

foreignpolicy.com

The need to assimilate minorities in the army must be counterweighed with the problem of tokenism. I believe minorities must have some capacity to break away from and deter a possible oppressive system if the situation calls for it.

Definition of tokenism: “the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from under-represented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.”

“A salad bowl is a metaphor for the way a multicultural society can integrate different cultures while maintaining their separate identities, contrasting with a melting pot, which emphasizes the combination of the parts into a single whole... In the salad bowl model, different cultures are brought together—like salad ingredients—but do not form together into a single homogeneous culture; each culture keeps its own distinct qualities. This idea proposes a society of many individual cultures, since the latter suggests that ethnic groups may be unable to preserve their heritage.”
- Wikipedia



“Minoritarianism is most often applied disparagingly to processes in which a minority is able to block legislative changes through supermajority threshold requirements.”
- Wikipedia

Giving greater autonomy to political opposition in the army wouldn’t lead to a tyranny of the minority situation as the majority segment would also be more independent. The opponents could simply refrain from entering a war they didn’t agree without having the ability to block the majority population entering a war. Although this could still discourage the majority as they wouldn’t have the same military strength and manpower in a war scenario compared to a unanimous army.

“The democratic peace theory posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies.”
- Wikipedia

“The war in Afghanistan appears to be the least popular war in American history, according to a new poll.
Less than one in five support the war in Afghanistan in a new CNN/ORC International poll, at 17 percent, and 82 percent oppose the conflict.”
- politico website

 

[Michael McMahon]

Militia define: “a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.”

“Lists of government opponents were handed out to militias who went and killed them, along with all of their families.”
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-africa-26875506

If minorities are not properly represented in the military, then a tyrannical government can try to covertly create their very own clandestine militias. They could subsequently attack any of their opponents and attempt to take complete, absolute control of the main military. Unfortunately they’d be able to do so swiftly and effortlessly by gun-running from the regular military of which they’ve majority control.

 

[Michael McMahon]

“The FAR [Rwandan Armed Forces] and the Interahamwe ("those who stand together" in Kinyarwanda) and Impuzamugambi ("those who fight together") militias targeted Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Most reliable commentators estimate that anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people were killed in barely four months, arguably the swiftest genocide in history...

In the first few hours after Habyarimana's death, the Presidential Guard headed up the killing in every neighbourhood of Kigali. The Rwandan Armed Forces (RAF) were also key players in the genocide. Soldiers operated the barricades and checkpoints on main roads, trained the interahamwe and party militias, and participated directly in the genocide, especially in urban areas. The military also organized all the large-scale massacres elsewhere in the country. The sequence of killing was repeated throughout. First, troops fired grenades, tear gas and machine guns into Tutsi homes or public places of refuge. Then the interahamwe, local militia, and civil self-defence forces moved in for the kill, using machetes and other weapons. Finally, troops and militia formed search parties to track down and kill any survivors . . .”

Refworld | Rwanda: Information on the role of the Interhamwe [also Interahamwe] militia and the use of roadblocks during the 1994 Rwandan genocide

Refworld is the leading source of information necessary for taking quality decisions on refugee status. Refworld contains a vast collection of reports relating to situations in countries of origin, policy documents and positions, and documents relating to international and national legal...

www.refworld.org

The above text illustrates the gruesome worst-case scenario of tyranny and collusion. It demonstrates the general need for precautionary, fail-safe countermeasures in the army.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The link below is just a very brief description of this very thread on my blog.

Untitled

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/minority-rights.353082/ (The moderators temporarily hid my thread. There are Microsoft links for each of the 75 pages towards the end of this page. Feel free to download them as a spare copy in case the thread ever gets removed. You can also copy your own files...

www.radicalcentristmichael.com

 

[Michael McMahon]

Rich2018: “You can't ban knives, they're just too essential in lots of trades and professions. You can ban people carrying them by insisting that they must have a reasonable reason for carrying one.”

I think that line of reasoning works well for larger close-combat weapons such as swords and axes. However it wouldn’t be effective for combatting knife crime in my opinion. I don’t think I’ve ever been frisk searched by police unless I’m at an airport. So there’s a low chance of a possible ill-intentioned criminal with a small, hidden knife being caught by a police officer. Deterrence alone won’t change the mindset of some sinister criminals.

 

[apdst]

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?

There's no way that wouldn't lead to corruption and massive abuses of power.

One of the great things about our system is that no party has control over our armed forces and our armed forces are constrained by The Constitution.

 

[Michael McMahon]

apdst: “There's no way that wouldn't lead to corruption and massive abuses of power.”

I don’t think there’s ever a perfect solution. Sometimes it’s about picking the least worst option! I’ve elaborated on a full spectrum of different ways to counteract tyranny. This runs the gamut from merely allowing greater free speech among soldiers, all the way to completely decentralising the military. I never said each method was a one-size-fit-all solution. I think it depends on the degree of tension and risk inside a certain country. The various solutions can be tailored to the hetergeneity of the country. In volatile and divided countries the paramount concern must always be to protect any minorities. Unfortunately if that creates risk of corruption, then so be it. I gave the important caveat that suspicious or illegitimate political parties can be prevented having any representation in the military owing to hate speech laws. Given the sheer scale of war crimes that have occurred in world history, I think the military must have some leeway to internally divide if the situation calls for it.

 

[Michael McMahon]

““Our officers showed incredible restraint. They can fire that distance. It’s not safe to do so,” said Robert Chamberlin, a member of the Las Vegas police department’s counter-terrorism force. “You are firing 32 floors up, from 500 meters (yards). So the trajectory of our rounds...even if we were accurate, they’re going to go up into the ceiling, up into the next floor.”
“(Our officers) knew they had to close [in] so that’s what they did,” he said.
Paddock sprayed bullets continuously on the concert crowd of 22,000 people for about 10 minutes, starting at 10:05 pm PT (1:05 am ET on Monday), according to Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo. Police blew open Paddock’s hotel room door 75 minutes after the shooting started, finding he had killed himself.”

How the Las Vegas shooter foiled a well-drilled counter-terrorism plan

Stephen Paddock's attack was only the second major mass shooting in modern US history where the gunman fired from an elevated position.

www.google.ie

If guns are legal then clearly civilians must try to improvise. I obviously stand by my previous statements about supporting gun control and minority rights. Ideally all of the weapons the gunman had access to would be banned outright in the first place.

But of course the past cannot be changed. So given that there were already legally available guns in society, was there any way to reduce the sheer scale of terror and tragedy inflicted by the gunman? In a situation that was so catastrophically dire, I think the police could really have risked collateral damage of innocent people being hurt in the hotel in order to stop the killer. Sadly it would have been the lesser of two evils. People who were armed might have been justified had they returned fire en masse at the approximate location of the murderer.

 

[Rucker61]

If guns are legal then clearly civilians must try to improvise. I obviously stand by my previous statements about supporting gun control and minority rights. Ideally all of the weapons the gunman had access to would be banned outright in the first place.

Why would all of the weapons the gunman have access to be banned outright?

 

[Michael McMahon]

Rucker61: “Why would all of the weapons the gunman have access to be banned outright?”

Even with an impossibly fast police response there would have been an intolerable number of casualties. The gunman inevitably would of had at least a minute to cause lethal carnage even had the police immediately responded with rocket launchers. To begin with, it would’ve taken them a long time to realise the shooting was occurring at all. The concert played on for a short while as people couldn’t see what was happening. This was due to the loud music masking the sounds of gunfire along with the darkness of night and large crowds.

It’s very easy to say this with hindsight but the SWAT team should really have been equipped with snipers to deal with such terror attacks. They then wouldn’t of had to waste time going all the way to his room. The resulting news reports honestly reminded me of the grisly movies about the Normandy landings. Paddock’s horrific sniper perch resembled the German soldiers in the bunkers with machine guns who were firing down on the American fighters on the beach. There’s simply no place for these war-style weapons in a civilian setting.

 

[countryboy]

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?

What are you even talking about? "Without any background checks".

 

[Michael McMahon]

countryboy: “What are you even talking about? "Without any background checks".

I’m of the opinion that civilian owned guns must be locked and stored at registered gun clubs. Target practice is indeed a great hobby. But you can fire any gun you want at a gun club where there are fellow members around to monitor you. I actually used a shotgun once and have practiced several times with an airgun. If you like hunting, keep your guns at the gun club when you’re not actively using them. You can tell the staff when and where you want to go hunting along with how long you’ll be and who else is with you. This is so that they know your location in case anything goes wrong.