Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
The one lacking understanding is you, for you have misinterpreted my argument and only served to reinforce my point: If you cant trust the police to protect you where can you turn?

Take away guns and you place sole responsability towards the protection of the populace upon the police, I didnt think you needed explaining why that isnt always a good solution: George Floyd should be an expert lesson!
Except that this doesn't work - certainly not for minorities in the USA. Although an individual can probably outrun the nation of the USA, no group can have an organised life with any sort of normality where they try to outfight the nation. Do you honestly think if the protesters were shooting at the police they'd be winning?

Should George have drawn a gun and shot the four police officers? He'd need something pretty impressive to kill four police before he got killed and would need to shoot before he can be overpowered. And there's four of them of course. Ergo, he should pop to the shops with an AR-15 on his back, or perhaps an MP-5 or other sub machine gun or PDW.
The police killed him after a 911 call that he used a fake $20. If he'd had a gun sufficiently powerful to survive the police, the 911 caller would have been telling the police about an armed black criminal so now the response will be substantively greater - probably a SWAT team of 5-6 officers.
So for George to purchase his groceries needs to have... erm... body armour (probably ceramic plate, since the response will be carrying assault rifles), ideally a defensive shield (ceramic plates are only good for a few shots at best), helmet (SWAT are good shots), gas mask (tear gas), one or two PDWs or an AR-15 (to successfully kill or incapacitate 6 trained officers will require rapid and accurate shooting) which in either case would need to be able to penetrate armour since they'll be wearing at least standard bullet proof vests.
To play it safe, he'd better deploy some claymore mines or other explosives outside the store before he goes in since walking in with guns and armour they'll call the police before he even gets to pay and this way he can mitigate them firing from multiple directions as he leaves from a fixed exit.
OK... So he manged to kill the first response team who were sent in with his guns and so on. I imagine as soon as the shooting starts, they'll escalate to either a helicopter, perhaps and APC or the other ex-military equipment the police in the USA have along with a lot more troops. So realistically, to manage to get home with the groceries he'll need an anti-material rifle. Something like a .50 with the right ammo might work - ideally a RPG but the damn government infringed his second amendment rights with not allowing this to be owned... Frankly he really needs a second person on a rooftop to provide overwatch. His car better be up-armoured to survive as well...

No wonder more and more people shop online.

Every hick with their own shotgun and family blood feud sounds like a comedy set in the boonies, not a civilised society. But then that has been Europe's view of the USA for... quite some time. The average person won't even be able to fight off burglars since unless you sleep in your kelvar vest, have the gun in a safe by the bed, wake up instantly and have the children further away from where the break in occurred (best have no windows on all bedrooms, just to be sure), there's a good chance the first thing you know is when there's a gun pointing at you whilst in bed.

One key plank of society is believing lies - and a key lie is that committing crimes will lead to punishment. Of course it doesn't - but most of us believe it enough of the time that we follow the rules which benefits us all more than breaking them would. This also relies on having a police force that that functions by consent - which is a concept that the USA hasn't grasped either, from the troopers to the President. You've got something equivalent to an occupying paramilitary.