|
One of the problems, for me, with the 'gun ownership prevents genocide' argument is that it gives a false sense of security against potential state violence. The reason there has been no genocide ofthe American population is not because the population is armed. Nor would the population being routinely armed prevent a genocide if the state turned against them, or if one part ofthe population turned against another part.
The only defence against genocide or tyranny is political - the USA is a democratic republic. That is its defence against genocide. You're right that an armed population can launch an insurrection in the face of tyranny - but that could only ever be a stop gap measure whilst better weaponry and external support were sought to assist that insurrection. The big question is how likely are you to ever face such a threat? the answer to that is not very likely at all. The threat of an armed populace dissolving into a brutal and bloody civil war is far more of a threat, but only where the political status quo has collapsed - the defence against that is to strenthen political systems and ties, not to make sure that everybody has a gun for when the shit hits the fan.
|