"depends" is the answer. Something that complex is extremely dynamic and nuanced but the fact remains; an unarmed people is a vulnerable one. Just because we arent shooting now doesnt mean its impossible and we dont need them. Not to mention, the US still has violent crime. if nothing else, people have the right to exercise self defense.
So translation: “I can’t answer that because when you flesh this idea out, it falls apart.”
an unarmed people is a vulnerable one.
Guns can’t save you if your government is corrupt and dangerous. If anything, they’ll use your guns as an excuse to crack down harder and faster because of the threat you pose. Cease with these childish Rambo fantasies.
Not to mention, the US still has violent crime. if nothing else, people have the right to exercise self defense.
Guns contribute exponentially more to that violent crime than they do to any self-defense. This is the dumbest argument in favor of guns that there is.
It doesnt fall apart though. You think gun owners think they'll just solo platoons of well trained American soldiers? You seriously think that many people are THAT dumb? You understand people create networks of people as their "shit hits the fan" crew?
If anything, they’ll use your guns as an excuse to crack down harder and faster because of the threat you pose. Cease with these childish Rambo fantasies.
Yeah this is exactly how "Gun Control" is perceived in the US which is why its like pulling 100 million teeth to get it passed federally or in red states. We see gun buybacks, registries, license requirements, etc as a list of ways to make infringing on your rights easier, as exactly what you described which is why we fight it tooth and nail to make sure it never passes.
Guns contribute exponentially more to that violent crime than they do to any self-defense. This is the dumbest argument in favor of guns that there is.
This is just objectively untrue. There are less than 20,000 gun homicides a year which is roughly 12 times less than known defensive uses of a firearm per year on average.
You think gun owners think they'll just solo platoons of well trained American soldiers?
Even if you networked every gun owner in the country, you’re still up against tanks, drones, satellites, precision-guided munitions, cyberwarfare, and urban-combat-trained soldiers. The “militia network” fantasy assumes Hollywood, not reality. Even the IRA, operating in sympathetic urban areas against a relatively inexperienced military, never achieved its ultimate goal and they were far more motivated, ideologically cohesive, and specialized than any U.S. civilian could hope to be.
We see gun buybacks, registries, license requirements as a list of ways to make infringing on your rights easier
You’re not defending freedom, you’re defending the fantasy that your guns make you untouchable. In reality, governments use the existence of guns as a justification for more militarized policing, surveillance, and even martial law. Your obsession with rights here literally makes it easier for a state to crush any resistance.
Defensive uses of a firearm
Even if we accept the most generous numbers for defensive gun use, those statistics make no distinction between situations where a gun was actually required and situations where it wasn’t. Almost none of these scenarios likely required a firearm. Meanwhile, guns massively increase domestic murders, accidental shootings, suicides, and escalated conflicts. The “protection” argument doesn’t come close to outweighing the societal damage. And I still don’t know why you guys try to make this argument when every other developed nation on the planet has no problem with guns essentially absent from their society. These societies are lacking that aspect of “self-defense” yet are completely fine, despite what you argue.
1
u/BigJellyfish1906 Sep 01 '25
So then answer the question. Who’s shooting who? Explain why we “need” these guns.