One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory. Don’t bring up Vietnam. Don’t bring up Afghanistan. If you think gravy seals navy is anything compared to the Viet Cong you are deluded.
Two: using the France terrorist road vehicle attack as a counter is disingenuous use of stats/numbers. You can’t compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US. What you would do -if you really cared to compare them- is take the average per capita road rage incident or vehicle based murders and compare them to the gun related mass shootings / deaths. You can control for many factors too (time frames, region, age, etc). Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used. We have millions of people driving and only so many intentional terrorist attacks using vehicles.
One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory.
It’s a tired argument I’m not interested in taking up again, but the answer is yes, they can. The military didn’t drop bombs on Waco.
You can’t compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US.
I didn’t. I compared it to every mass shooting in the history of the country. The moral of the story (since you missed it) is that you can ban guns and it won’t stop people from just using something else when they want to hurt large groups of random people.
Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used.
Which is precisely why “gun deaths” and “gun violence” is a terrible metric. Even if you could theoretically take them all away, they’d just use something else (like a rental truck). Notice a theme here?
A couple points.
One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory. Don’t bring up Vietnam. Don’t bring up Afghanistan. If you think gravy seals navy is anything compared to the Viet Cong you are deluded.
Two: using the France terrorist road vehicle attack as a counter is disingenuous use of stats/numbers. You can’t compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US. What you would do -if you really cared to compare them- is take the average per capita road rage incident or vehicle based murders and compare them to the gun related mass shootings / deaths. You can control for many factors too (time frames, region, age, etc). Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used. We have millions of people driving and only so many intentional terrorist attacks using vehicles.
It’s a tired argument I’m not interested in taking up again, but the answer is yes, they can. The military didn’t drop bombs on Waco.
I didn’t. I compared it to every mass shooting in the history of the country. The moral of the story (since you missed it) is that you can ban guns and it won’t stop people from just using something else when they want to hurt large groups of random people.
Which is precisely why “gun deaths” and “gun violence” is a terrible metric. Even if you could theoretically take them all away, they’d just use something else (like a rental truck). Notice a theme here?
That’s because the FBI dropped tear gas and then in the confusion, Waco militia accidentally set the entire place on fire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
There is a mountain of evidence to indicate that that’s not at all what happened.
Show me then, I’m ignorant of the Waco raid.
Educate yourself, it’ll be good for you.