But why offensive weapons? Why not weapons effective for non-lethal defense only? Does this relate to the "best defense is a good offense" strategy? Again, I refer to Detroit Threat Management. They specialize in non-lethal de-escalation in their security practice. I'm just not convinced high powered rifles with a lot of ammunition makes sense as the most effective defensive weapon for disabling an attacker. Am I missing something?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How would a population defend itself from internal police, military forces, or external forces with just non-lethal defensive weapons? Are the attackers going to give up their lethal weapons?
Will the military and police of the world give theirs up? Will the criminals and other predators? No, they will not. It doesn't work anyway. Again, take away guns, and predators will still have other weapons.
If you are using a vehicle to kill people, I want to have a gun to stop you. If you are using a knife to kill people, I want to have a gun to stop you. No one is bullet proof, and that's why oligarchs don't want the rest of us armed.
There are two systems basically. One system has a few armed to the teeth with the means of destruction at their finger tips. History shows they have done serious damage too. Democide is a top killer.
The other system is when all people are armed, and that makes it so the first system's oligarchs and agents of the oligarchs cannot commit democide without a bloody fight.
I understand this argument and have used it many times myself. I also can't ignore the evidence if other countries whise populations don't have guns and they also don't have the gun violence problem we have. Additionally, they are not authoritarian, so they don't have the democide problem either. The argument can be made that maybe some day they will and they've only increased systemic risk by disarming. To make that claim (or any claim, for that matter), I think we have to look to evidence, reason, and logic. The study I referenced in my post is one such example. Every country with disarmed citizens doesn't automatically get destroyed by a tyrannical government.
Those people are subjects. They are not free. We have a problem with gun violence? Millions upon millions of guns in America didn't harm a single person today. 99.999% of the guns don't.
How can you say those places are not authoritarian when they prevent people from owning the means of defense? The UK even has anti-knife laws. The police, royals, and military can own weapons though.
You though? Nope. You're not allowed. That is authoritarian. I'm not saying all disarmed countries are destroyed by their governments, but that has happened. Laos? China? Soviet Union?
History has countless examples of how people, who are disarmed, are then slaughtered. What about that evidence? Is it not reasonable to consider those examples from history?
What is logical is that free people are armed, and they maintain the ability to resist, with violence if necessary, to protect themselves. That prevents slaughters that have happened in places like Russia, China, Africa, etc. etc. etc.
Ask an American Indian about disarming and trusting the government.