Re:Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say
by fein on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:08PM
(#10566765)
> defend from what?
From any assailant, be it a mugger, rapist, breaking and entering, "terrorism" (whatever that actually means), an oppressive state, etc.
Would you rather just do nothing and accept whatever comes your way as fate?
Re:Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say
by TeMPOraL on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:13PM
(#10566793)
I'm not going into the other potential enemies because I recognize there are valid arguments for guns there, but we know that guns won't help you against a) terrorists, because they have the initiative, so they'll attack in a way that is effective, taking into account whatever defense measures targeted population may have, and b) oppressive state, because a state actor has trained troops (as opposed to untrained civilians) with weapons and motorized equipment.
I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot before they strike. So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they're not walking out of that one alive.
> I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose.
The core question here is - defend from what? Guns won't help you defend from a terrorist attack anymore than they can help you defend from an asteroid strike. Since we don't use extinction of dinosaurs as a pro-gun argument, we shouldn't use terrorist attacks either. Note that I'm not supporting pro- or anti-gun stance here, I only refuse to accept invalid arguments - from either side.