To outgun a military is probably not a practical ambition for a civilian, simply because stockpiling this stuff would be nuts economically. Very ironically this is something where having a black market helps. The live-round 2014 Kiev battles might be an example of a realistic scenario where different gun regulations could have had a strong impact.

There are some definite no-nos, like assault-weapons. And if you want to regulate, instead of prohibit, you have to invest into a good gun culture, which we really don't know anything about. That would be a big social engineering challenge.

There are some advantages, like lone-shooter type events becoming much less insidious, which don't cost as many lives as say sedentary life-styles, but being powerless in those (improbable) situations makes us very insecure. That insecurity is very erosive and tiring; but on the other hand, if gun-carry was implemented, and we didn't have a good enough culture, you'd get "casual" shootings, where what would have been a fist fight turned into a gun fight.

There's also the argument about whether or not to treat adults as inherently competent. Prohibition, i.e. complete deregulation, all in all seems to me like a quick hack; of course, the other side of the coin is that good regulation is really hard. I'm somewhat torn, but leaning towards regulation. To me it seems like one of those decisions that isn't easy, because it's not win-win-win across the board, but it's worse if you don't do it.

Of course this is mostly fantasy. I don't think we'll see gun-carry in the West any time soon. We're used to complete delegation of personal-security and the shift, at this point, would be counter-cultural.

> Of course this is mostly fantasy. I don't think we'll see gun-carry in the West any time soon. ...

What part of the West are you talking about? It's super common in vast swathes of the US.

The Occident. Yeah, I guess those swathes of the US are the popular exception.

Got it. Though it was pretty common in big parts of The West (as in The Occident) in the first half of the 20th century as well. At least via my understanding of things.

I'd be interested in reading more on that, I really haven't a clue about gun culture of that time.

I can't cite a reference, but many pieces of fiction from the day and historical accounts seem to involve people with ready access to firearms. Google produced this which seems to support what I said above (aka British people seemed to have common access to firearms until ~ WW2 times):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_...

Problem is that government can always buy bigger weapons.

Militarization of police in USA is good example. They will always outgun you.

Correct, and they also have a multitude of soft power ways to destroy someone as well (freeze bank accounts, push a narrative in the media, imprisonment), as well as define their target as an "enemy combatant", after which all bets are off on lawful treatment.

Anyone who thinks that firearms purchased through their local gun store will do anything to stop a truly tyrannical government is living in a fantasy.

Yeah, but illiterate shepherds with decades outdated weapons have held off the US in afghan for however many years now

The USA won that war — it’s the peace which they’re struggling with, and that’s a very different thing. Doubly so when you’re trying to install a friendly democratic government and the only reason your troops are still there is to support that new government — what would have happened (politically) if the French had kept troops in the USA after the war of independence?

Police and soldiers (should) have different goals and tools.

It's semantics, but I don't think "there are people actively attacking our military, and we are struggling with peace" really counts as "winning the war". But I agree that military is probably not the most effective way to achieve progress at this stage.

They may outgun a single person but they won't outgun a large scale uprising. You're also assuming the police and military will always obey orders, which hasn't always been the case, especially when government goes dictatorial.

We haven't (thank god) had a situation in the USA where actually shooting at law enforcement is a good idea. That is, where you're literally at war with the government and trying to replace it with another one, which will in turn recognise your actions as not against the law. On the other hand, things like home invasions happen daily.