I don’t support civilian gun ownership, so I don’t think I am the best person to discuss what’s pragmatic or not.
I will give you a real world example from where I live. You think Ukraine having an armed citizenry would have stopped the Russian invasion? Such a claim is preposterous. You need APCs, tanks, artillery, fighter/bombers, anti-air, industrial drones, ballistic missiles, helicopters and a highly sophisticated and expansive arms industry. Armed militia isn’t going to cut it.
Even the arguement that gun ownership would have benefit for preparedess is weak. You would need mandatory military service and an intense reservist program not some random who likes the feeling of firing a gun. Not mention sophisticated weapons, military vehicles and so on.
But enough about Ukraine. In the US context, arguments about pragmatic approaches are IMO (from my time living there) irrelevant. My reasoning can be explained by the following question:
Can anyone in America (criminals, the mentally ill, regressives) procure a large amount of weaponry with relative ease (with no background checks) as long as they have a modicum amount of organisational skills and moderate resources?
I am from Ukraine. And I am sure that the situation would have evolved completely differently in 2014 if people had weapons. Not so much in '22, yes. But '14 led to '22.
Answering your question about the US: yes, I believe that any non-imbecile criminal can acquire any non-special weapon in the USA. Maybe not an AT-launcher, but a pistol or a rifle without any problems.
Не думаю, що це допомогло б і в 2014 році. Якщо наші гіпотетичні ополченці відтіснили російських бойовиків на Донбасі, основна російська армія втрутилася б у ситуацію (як у Криму).
Навіть у 2014 році нам потрібна була сильна армія. ТРО було б недостатньо.
As I said earlier, modern APCs, tanks, ballistic missiles (imagine if we would could have striked Russia proper and bombed their Black sea fleet with modern missiles in 2014). Hell, if we had such capabilities (especially striking russia) the russians might not have invaded at all.
So isn’t the discussion on pragmatic approaches (in context of the US) moot? I did not get the impression there was any interest in implementing true mandatory background checks (no loop holes and severe, life changing penalties for rule breakers).
I don’t support civilian gun ownership, so I don’t think I am the best person to discuss what’s pragmatic or not.
I will give you a real world example from where I live. You think Ukraine having an armed citizenry would have stopped the Russian invasion? Such a claim is preposterous. You need APCs, tanks, artillery, fighter/bombers, anti-air, industrial drones, ballistic missiles, helicopters and a highly sophisticated and expansive arms industry. Armed militia isn’t going to cut it.
Even the arguement that gun ownership would have benefit for preparedess is weak. You would need mandatory military service and an intense reservist program not some random who likes the feeling of firing a gun. Not mention sophisticated weapons, military vehicles and so on.
But enough about Ukraine. In the US context, arguments about pragmatic approaches are IMO (from my time living there) irrelevant. My reasoning can be explained by the following question:
Can anyone in America (criminals, the mentally ill, regressives) procure a large amount of weaponry with relative ease (with no background checks) as long as they have a modicum amount of organisational skills and moderate resources?
Yes or No?
I am from Ukraine. And I am sure that the situation would have evolved completely differently in 2014 if people had weapons. Not so much in '22, yes. But '14 led to '22.
Answering your question about the US: yes, I believe that any non-imbecile criminal can acquire any non-special weapon in the USA. Maybe not an AT-launcher, but a pistol or a rifle without any problems.
Сподіваюся, у тебе все добре. :)
Не думаю, що це допомогло б і в 2014 році. Якщо наші гіпотетичні ополченці відтіснили російських бойовиків на Донбасі, основна російська армія втрутилася б у ситуацію (як у Криму).
Навіть у 2014 році нам потрібна була сильна армія. ТРО було б недостатньо.
As I said earlier, modern APCs, tanks, ballistic missiles (imagine if we would could have striked Russia proper and bombed their Black sea fleet with modern missiles in 2014). Hell, if we had such capabilities (especially striking russia) the russians might not have invaded at all.
So isn’t the discussion on pragmatic approaches (in context of the US) moot? I did not get the impression there was any interest in implementing true mandatory background checks (no loop holes and severe, life changing penalties for rule breakers).