Good Samaritan Stops Rape with Gun:

Tsing Tao said:
With the noted exception that, in order to do such a thing, the government would rely heavily on military and police folk, the vast majority of which would not stand by if innocents were killed en masse.
More...

Indeed, they are you. It is always a head scratcher, people who hail the military and police as heroes also see the 'federal' as coming to conquer them. Its the same people.
 
then you are not thinking about all the scenarios which are possible.

you are not thinking about a scenario in which there is a partial coup or takeover by an outside power.. .or coercion.

you are not thinking about a scenario in which congress got nuked during a state of the union address.

You are also not thinking about a group of states attempting to secede from union facing opposition for a few days or weeks before the bigger side realized the only way to prevent the secession was to use more force and death than is acceptable.

I am not thinking that that 300 men in the northwest would hold off the entire federal govt.
I am thinking of all the other scenarios in which things were were more balanced or more chaotic. a 100 million guns could easily be the difference in making sure our freedoms were preserved.



Tsing Tao said:
No one is a greater advocate than I on supporting the 2nd amendment. However, the idea of someone with guns resisting the government is lunacy. They have much bigger guns. That may have been part of the original intent, but it's not very valid today.
More...
 
jem said:
then you are not thinking about all the scenarios which are possible.

you are not thinking about a scenario in which there is a partial coup or takeover by an outside power.. .or coercion.

you are not thinking about a scenario in which congress got nuked during a state of the union address.

You are also not thinking about a group of states attempting to secede from union facing opposition for a few days or weeks before the bigger side realized the only way to prevent the secession was to use more force and death than is acceptable.

I am not thinking that that 300 men in the northwest would hold off the entire federal govt.
I am thinking of all the other scenarios in which things were were more balanced or more chaotic. a 100 million guns could easily be the difference in making sure our freedoms were preserved.
More...

Of course I thought of them. But when I cross the street I look left, right & listen.. I don't look in the sky should a plane using it as an emergency runway kill me.

Too much of the pro-gun argument is based on shamefully poor judgement.
 
Why buy out of the money puts?

Why would a young man buy health insurance.
On the news I saw a houses in San Diego get hit by planes.
I bet they were glad they had insurance.

We all make judgments about the risk tail.
Its not the just we insure against risk of it happening but the magnitude of the risk.

I really like the Judge learned hand formula for calculating risk.

If the magnitude is large and the risk aversion useful and easy... you should protect yourself.





Slartibartfast said:
Of course I thought of them. But when I cross the street I look left, right & listen.. I don't look in the sky should a plane using it as an emergency runway kill me.

Too much of the pro-gun argument is based on shamefully poor judgement.
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
then you are not thinking about all the scenarios which are possible.

you are not thinking about a scenario in which there is a partial coup or takeover by an outside power.. .or coercion.

you are not thinking about a scenario in which congress got nuked during a state of the union address.

You are also not thinking about a group of states attempting to secede from union facing opposition for a few days or weeks before the bigger side realized the only way to prevent the secession was to use more force and death than is acceptable.

I am not thinking that that 300 men in the northwest would hold off the entire federal govt.
I am thinking of all the other scenarios in which things were were more balanced or more chaotic. a 100 million guns could easily be the difference in making sure our freedoms were preserved.
More...

Partial coup or coercion isn't going to result in me rushing to the street, guns in hand. Congress getting nuked wouldn't either, but would instead make me want guns to defend against my fellow countrymen and the panic that would ensue.

State succession, same. That's not something for me to deal with, I have a family to protect.

There is no realistic scenario I can think of that would involve me fighting the government with armed resistance. There are just far too many controls in place right now to prevent that scenario from being a viable one.
 
examples... of successful resistance...
Bundy ranch
Ruby ridge
mexican vigilantes vs the cartels... (can be like the govt)

its a spectrum...
sure the feds could go full neutron bomb on the people...
but most likely they would have to have state by state national guards killing citizens. There might be revolts among the guard.
It might not be so easy for the Feds whereas an unarmed populace might be.



Tsing Tao said:
Partial coup or coercion isn't going to result in me rushing to the street, guns in hand. Congress getting nuked wouldn't either, but would instead make me want guns to defend against my fellow countrymen and the panic that would ensue.

State succession, same. That's not something for me to deal with, I have a family to protect.

There is no realistic scenario I can think of that would involve me fighting the government with armed resistance. There are just far too many controls in place right now to prevent that scenario from being a viable one.
More...
 
Last edited:
Tsing Tao said:
No one is a greater advocate than I on supporting the 2nd amendment. However, the idea of someone with guns resisting the government is lunacy. They have much bigger guns. That may have been part of the original intent, but it's not very valid today.
More...
You've not thought this through.
 
The genie has been out of the bottle since the beginning in the US with guns. For each era one can find a fair reason for quite a lot of guns. But they were shotguns, hunting rifles, army pistols and whatnot.

Then came Wayne the lobbyist for the gun manufacturing industry. Military style weapons became cool consumer items and things got irrational. There are 50,000 more gun shops than McDonalds in the US. http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-dealers-laws-us-states-starbucks-2017-10

There are so many gun sellers, so much competition among them that irresponsible behavior is rife. Just be thankful he was not representing the for profit-prison industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top