ZephMarshack wrote:
They weren't exactly mowed down by him and his legal weapons either though, unlike the citizens at the concert.
But again, perhaps this is just pointing to the evergreen solution of more and better weapons in the hands of everyone; if someone at the concert had an assault rifle or rocket launcher maybe the killer is heroically stopped early on!
What is your solution though? I'm not against tighter gun control either but I still think, in one way or another, it is an important right for us as a people even if I'm not probably ever going to own one.
ZephMarshack wrote:
You can also "resist" peacefully or without needing tools regularly by private citizens to kill other citizens! And if you're defending the current laws as providing the means of resisting tyranny, then surely the credibility of such resistance depends on a relevant probability of victory, which under the current laws would seem to be next to nil.
No, it has nothing to do with probability of victory. As I said a few times, no other army in the whole world would win a war against the United States. It's the greatest army in the history of civilization. A full scale war between citizens and that would result in no way that they lose. The "resist" movement would be about fighting back enough and defending enough to try and have either external or internal forces intervene to the point that we are able to defend against it.
Let me use a small scale example. If a high school kid wants to learn to defend themselves by training in a fighting discipline there can be value in it even if there is no chance that his fighting skills will be enough to fight off the entire football team if they determine that they want to hurt him. He may not even get one punch in before they get him. That doesn't mean there is no value in being able to defend yourself.
ZephMarshack wrote:
You just seem to be advocating an ad hoc Goldilocks view of guns wherein current laws are not too dangerous to other citizens and not too toothless against the government but just right. The problem is I see no actual argument for this view.
You just want to make it about extremes here. I think there is value in some level of civilian defense towards a potential violent dictator-like government takeover. That's it. Given the current rhetoric about Trump and him being a "fascist" I think now is a decent enough time to at least consider the possibility.