to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?
that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?
if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.
right?
or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.
the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]
The crazy nutjob killers are not fighting well-armed soldiers; they are fighting innocent civilians who are usually unarmed. They don’t *need* guns, and often don’t use guns, but guns do make it a bit more convenient if one wants to murder multiple people at once if one doesn’t want to use explosives, etc.
OTOH, people who are protecting against a tyrannical government (ours or another) will be fighting well-armed soldiers, and would therefore need guns, at the very least.
If you think armed citizens don’t regularly protect against armed soldiers, look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Cuba, etc. Our military has not managed to really gain control in any of these countries because of their armed citizens/guerrilla forces . There are many examples in history where armed citizens were able to fight off military/political enemies. An armed citizenry is also why Switzerland wasn’t invaded by the Nazis.
