Corvus Metus
Star
- Joined
- May 14, 2017
- Messages
- 1,269
Two problems with this logic.It's called gueralla warfare. The government still can't win in Afghanistan, you drastically overrate them.
1.) You're overestimating the grit of the weekend warrior. The average fighter in Afghanistan has nothing to lose. Many of them had family killed by American bombs. Some people might be willing to go to jail for their guns... But I think a lot less people are willing to actually die for them.
War, after all, is hell. The majority of these people probably wouldn't be able to actually pull the trigger, will cash out the moment they realized it's not a game.
2.) Eternal war, in foreign lands, is profitable. Eternal civil war is not.
Winning a war against the government is unlikely though.Disarming the populace is a key objective for a one world government. It's not highly unlikely at all. Not sure why you'd be on VC if you think armed conflict with the government is extremely unlikely.
The type of gun that's best in self-defense depends on the situation and in most circumstances that isn't actually going to be an AR. It's actually pretty awful in home defense or close-quarters in general compared to a shotgun and if you're on the move a lot, a 9mm handgun would actually be more efficient. Contrary to popular belief, modern 9mm handguns are reliable enough as far as stopping power goes in most circumstances. The ammo is also more common and a lot lighter than any round you'd get in common ARs.But let's say we accept that ARs are deadlier. If I knew there was going to be an attack on my life today and I could choose to defend myself with an AR or a handgun, I'm going to take an AR.
An AR would only be more efficient in circumstances where you've got a lot of targets (and if you're in a situation where a lot of other people with guns are chasing you, it's better to get the fuck out of dodge) or in situations where you have the advantage of range. Most of those aren't cases where it would be useful for "self-defense".