There’s a one word rebuttal to this entire article: Afghanistan
I agreed with pretty much everything, until you get here:
And unless you have a few Hellfire missiles, or an F-16 in your garage, STFU. Because you will stop absolutely nothing.
This is verifiably untrue. We have been running a case study for this very scenario on the other side of the world since 2001, and the results are in. A bunch of unsophisticated goat herders with IEDs and Kalashnikovs will eventually beat the full force of the United States Armed Forces purely through force of will. The Afghanistan war has lasted approximately three times as long as World War II, and the only possible end to it is when the USA finally withdraws, and the Afghanis with the guns apportion what’s left of their country among the locals. Which shouldn’t have surprised us, because they also did it to the Russians before us.
All that it takes to win an insurgency is willpower, patience, and rifles.
Before the war in Afghanistan, that was merely speculation. Now it’s a (very expensively) proven fact.
The article also misses the overall point that gun proliferation works as a deterrent of tyranny before the first shot is ever fired, purely because it installs fear in those who might try it. You don’t even technically have to win, you just have to show that you are willing to make it ugly, and then you don’t have to fight at all.
Let’s at least have the debate.
If we’re going to have the debate, we need to start by being very clear about the facts of the case. The facts are these:
- There is no gun homicide epidemic
- Gun homicides are not correlated at all with gun ownership rates
- AR-15 and similar rifles make up less than 0.7% of the firearm deaths in the country
- Mass shootings are literally not worth mentioning, statistically speaking
- The problems that we do have, statistically speaking, are not fixed by any of the measures the left of center media are currently proposing