Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnski
So the populous never had a chance to defend themselves from their rulers.
Philosophically, I believe a well armed populace is a good vaccination against any potential tyranny of a government and/or crime in general.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
What good are guys with rifles against a trained military with armor and aircraft?
North Korea's army and intelligence services are not opposed to tamping out a revolution as needed, that's part of their indoctrination.
Also when your population doesn't believe they have it bad, they won't rise up.
|
Yeah, pro gun folks and conservatives like to throw out that reasoning, but there is no real historical or logical proof of it. The American succession from GB may be the only example that makes sense, and of course had a lot of other factors involved, the biggest that the ruling party/oppressive regime wasn't even on the same continent!
In fact in a lot of examples more guns means more violence. Look at all the 'freedom fighters' in Africa.
And as far as reduction of crime goes, well that's not even close, and easily found stats prove that.
When it comes to regimes like NK that have such an overwhelming level of control over their population, guns aren't going to do a whole lot. Especially in a modern age, as you mentioned.
Also like the thought about buying food vs buying guns. That makes a lot of sense too.