• masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It requires not allowing the police to be outgunned by terrorists.

    Notice that it was after the LA bank robbery in the 90s, where two guys had tons of body armour and military rifles and outgunned the LAPD with their 6 shooters, that you suddenly saw every single police force across the country militarize and buy assault rifles, body armour, and APCs.

    Notice how in the UK their cops still patrol without guns.

    The state will always maintain a monopoly on the top level of violence. The idea of gun ownership to oppose the state is laughable. Notice: right now, no gun owners using them to oppose the state.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.

        It will also arm a whole shit of load terrorists, and people just having a bad day.

        The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state.

        Yeah, and now you’ve raised the floor massively.

        when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force

        [citation needed]