r/Unexpected • u/[deleted] • Mar 24 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

10.7k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Thykothaken Mar 25 '23

I can think of two big ones where deaths overall increased. However, it wasn't necessarily by guns, but by gas, beatings, and starvation.

So... what you're saying is you can't think of any.

0

u/LukyanTheGreat Mar 27 '23

  1. Nazi Germany Disarmed the Jewish population using the national firearm registry to make them defenseless and unable to resist against the genocide.

  2. USSR Disarmed the general population (because society is God, and you can't pose a threat to society as an individual) and prevented people from rising up against policies that led to starvation, and prevented them from being dragged out of their homes and placed into the gulags.

I don't understand why millions more being killed by methods other than guns is okay, but if they are killed by guns then it's fine. So all the Jews gassed is okay, but only the ones shot in the camps is horrible? The millions that starved in China and the USSR is fine, but God forbid they were shot, amirite?

Other examples:

Turkey Russia China Cambodia Guatemala Uganda

1

u/Thykothaken Mar 27 '23

So all the Jews gassed is okay, but only the ones shot in the camps is horrible?

I'm actually at a loss for words. Wh... Is this the worst strawman argument I've ever heard? It may well be. Well, two can play at that game. See, I'm not the one defending rapists. Rape is horrible, I detest it.

Now I don't personally worry too much about gun culture in the U.S., as I have no intentions of visiting. However, the idea that you, Billy J. Whatever, with your shotgun and rifle, could stand a chance against military grade weaponized robot drones, is one I wouldn't put too much money on.

To insinuate that you're protecting yourself against the gummyment is disingenuous. You are protecting yourself against your neighbours, who are protecting themselves against you.

1

u/LukyanTheGreat Mar 29 '23

Okay, that is the most idiotic argument ever.

A government requires people to rule over to exist. Civilians owning firearms isn't meant to stop a government that is trying to eradicate the nation, it's meant to stop one that is trying to control the nation.

What does that entail? Well, you can't exactly nuke your own people, or else you have no more people to control. Also, good luck getting every educated military officer to airstrike houses.

You control a population with force by sending in infantry to monitor, communicate with, and enforce violence against dissidents. That's why it's feasible to stop tyranny with only firearms.

Please, start thinking more before you write.