Mass shootings are a predictable outcome of gun ownership. Those tragedies are the price of protecting the public from its own government. Is that price worth the benefit?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Can you calculate the likelihood of gun owners’ need to take up arms against their government? How does that compare to the increased likelihood that those guns will be used in violence, crimes or suicides? It seems worth examining all angles.
33 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @G_Riedel
You can estimate the odds. Say a 2% chance of millions dying by government turning "bad." 2% times 370 million is about 7 million. Takes a long time to get to that number with mass shootings.
4 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Your 2% is a wildly unrealistic overestimation. We’ve had 300+ years of good, increasingly stable governance in the US.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_Riedel
It's only 2% in the short run. In the long run, it's 100%, for any country.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
This is Neanderthal thinking. Political systems and citizens’ relationships with their government have changed dramatically in the past 5,000 years and vary from country to country. Owning a personal firearm won’t prevent or protect against the US government turning bad.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @G_Riedel @ScottAdamsSays
"Owning a personal firearm won't prevent or protect against the US government turning bad." Let's all meditate on this gem for a while.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
It's a straw man argument. The framers did not write the 2nd as "The right to go to war against your government." The 2nd is the right to possess the tools needed to defend yourself, your family, your community, and your country.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.