teh gunz Ctrl

[gaelic cowboy]

If the history of the USA is anything to go by then getting troops to open fire on US citizens is not the problem, basically the real problem is paying your troops after society collapses due to a succesful coup.

After all the millitary is usually made of a certain sections of society and often weighted more to certain regions of the Unitied States, so it shouldnt be that hard to spread such an idea among people who generally distrust politicians.

[Lemur]

But don't buy the "end of history" nonsense.

Agreed. If something could be true a hundred years ago, it can be true again. Because war ... war never changes ...

I thought someone in this thread wrote about how much better it would have been if the audience had been shooting back, and I was going to counter-post that in darkness and confusion, with untrained shooters, just about anything could happen. But re-reading the thread, I can't find it. So maybe it was written elsewhere, or edited out of here.

Meh. Need moar coffee.

[CountArach]

In general, it is a very bad idea to legislate based on tragedy. The results never reflect the intentions. If someone is hell bent on wreaking havoc, there is not much that legislation can do about it.

Just to pick up on this, the legislation in Australia in the OP was put in place directly after a tragedy and the result demonstrably had the desired effect. The problem isn't legislating based on tragedy, the problem is that the heightened emotions around tragedies can lead to ineffective legislation. That is a problem with legislators, not the idea itself. In this case we had a strong bi-partisan support for gun legislation (despite the fact that the sitting Prime Minister had the support of the pro-gun lobby) and the result that what needed to be done was done.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I would say that afghanistan is a superb example of the validity of an armed civilian resistance...

It's a terrible example. When the USA went in guns blazing, so to speak, the Taliban was practically wiped out. Then the USA decided that they cared about the civilians after all and didn't want to look all mean so they refrained from using real force. Result: "successful" civilian resistance, the kind that kills more of its own through stupidity than any credible threat to the USA forces. It's just that the USA forces don't want to "suppress" the Afghans so the Afghans "get away" with it.

If by contrast the USA took a few leafs out of Assad's rule book, neither the Afghans nor you would stand a chance.

[Vuk]

Agreed. If something could be true a hundred years ago, it can be true again. Because war ... war never changes ...

I thought someone in this thread wrote about how much better it would have been if the audience had been shooting back, and I was going to counter-post that in darkness and confusion, with untrained shooters, just about anything could happen. But re-reading the thread, I can't find it. So maybe it was written elsewhere, or edited out of here.

Meh. Need moar coffee.

But that is where you are wrong Lemur. Most people who carry know what they are doing. Gun enthusiasts generally like guns and know them and their use very well. Many have shot since they were children. Also, gun owners are painfully aware of what would happen to them if something went wrong, and of the fact that libs would jump at the chance to prosecute them if someone was accidentally hurt. If you had one brave gun carrier there, the shooter probably would not have made it out alive. People go on as if his 'tactical gear' makes him invincible, but it does not. It will help, but a guy with a 1911 could have taken him out. First of all, his face was unarmoured, as he was wearing a gas mask. Second of all, most body armour covers the abdomen, and leaves the chest mostly vulnerable. Even if someone was only able to shoot him in his armoured abdomen, it would probably have a great enough affect on him, if not to drop him to the ground, at least to stun him and disrupt his aim long enough for someone to tackle and disarm him.

Rifles and shotguns have an obvious other purpose, as do handguns. I would consider both hunting and self defense to be valid reasons for owning a firearm. A automatic rifle fits no logical criteria. I'm sorry but your desires as a hobbyist do not overrule the fact that these are weapons with no real purpose other than to take life in an offensive, undiscerning manner.

The fact of the matter is guns do kill people. The tired old trope about a gun being just a tool is a fallacy.

You realize that an AR15 is a rifle, don't you? You realize that he had 4 weapons total with him: a rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns, don't you? By your definition, nothing that he had should be illegal. Also, his rifle was not automatic BTW. You really do have no idea at all what you are talking about. Also, its only purpose is to take life in an offensive and undiscerning manner? Really? So it is not possible that someone may use it to kill in self-defense, or that they choose who to kill with it? It just goes around killing innocent people all by itself? You crack me up Strike.
It is a fallacy? How so? What is it if not a tool? It is no different than a knife. It is a tool that has both lethal and non-lethal uses. Any weapon is just a tool. One use for such a tool is, of course, killing. That does not mean that it is not a tool, and that it is up to the owner whether to use it, when to use it, and how to use it...just like any other tool. Owning a gun does not make you suddenly want to go kill children in a school.

The fact you can go hunting with a truck mounted machine gun doesn't suddenly mean that it should be legalised. I can eat dinner with a combat knife. It does not make it an acceptable thing to do.

Altering definitions to fit the current guns has been done in the past when machine guns were made illegal. The initial definition was something along the lines of a gun that has a continual rate of fire on depression of the trigger. Of course, someone made a weapon that fires the whole magazine on pressing the trigger once. The laws were quickly changed - without banning all guns!

Varying barriers to ownership would be another approach. You want a .22 pistol that holds 6 bullets? Relatively easy to get hold of. A desert eagle .50 with an extended mag? Possibly some more information is needed, starting with "WHY?"

The really lethal things could be allowed only in designated areas under the control of a gun club which in turn is closely monitored. Then those poor individuals who can only get hard after firing a mini-gun have hope.

In muggings, pepper spray / chilli spray or a tazer works, and ensures that some panicked accountant doesn't drill someone 50 metres away because their aim is so poor that they missed the person approaching asking for directions. That the person who is to be mugged draws a weapon faster than the mugger either means they are supernaturally fast or isn't a factor that should be looked at too closely (I assume everyone walks around with a loaded pistol in their hands - just in case.

Why is it wrong to eat dinner with a combat knife? I've done it before when I was camping.
Why should I have to give up my privacy to own a desert eagle? If I am not a criminal, why should it be a problem? Whether I have a 9MM beretta or a .50 Desert Eagle, it really makes little difference if I want to murder people. Whether it is a lot of people or one person, both are gonna be able to do the job efficiently. Heck, your .22 with 6 rounds is more than capable of being used to kill. If someone in that crowd was carrying a .50 AE with them at that theatre, those people would not have died.
You see, the good thing is that the bad guys are stupid, ignorant liberals who know nothing about guns, or drugged up gangbangers who are too cool to learn how to use a gun properly 99% of the time. That is why the legal gun owners, who are usually very proficient in their guns use, usually better trained/educated, and often ex-military have a distinct advantage.
The bad guys rarely know what they are doing, which is why one skilled gun owner or the police can usually take care of them so easily. That dude in Norwey is the only guy in recent history I have read about who actually sounded like he had any idea what he was doing.

Someone who knows something about guns knows that large magazines, and esp. drums are very prone to misfeeding and jamming. Also, a skilled gun owner knows that you are gonna do far more damage taking quick, accurate shots with a semi-auto rifle than you will spraying with a full-auto, yet most school shooters, etc. come in spraying with an automatic and generally do very little actually damage to everything but the walls and ceilings.
In the case of this most recent shooter, he would have been much better off with a bunch of thirty round mags, and just practiced reloaded till he could do so very fast under stress. Most shooters don't aim though, don't take care of their guns properly, and try to equip themselves like Rambo.

Then stupid liberals look at that and try to ban the scary looking guns and equipment that the shooters stupidly took with them, even though they do not have nearly the potential to be dangerous as a lot more 'tame' guns.

I am not trying to say that ful auto weapons do not have their uses...they do, but for most shootings, and semi-auto weapon with a level head behind it would be much more effective.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Agreed. If something could be true a hundred years ago, it can be true again. Because war ... war never changes ...

I thought someone in this thread wrote about how much better it would have been if the audience had been shooting back, and I was going to counter-post that in darkness and confusion, with untrained shooters, just about anything could happen. But re-reading the thread, I can't find it. So maybe it was written elsewhere, or edited out of here.

Meh. Need moar coffee.

It was me, alluding to the question of how many of the individuals were armed. If there were many armed people and they failed to use their weapons, that would weaken my point. If they were unarmed, it could suggest a somewhat altered outcome should they have been armed and would lead us to question whether casualties would have been higher or lower.

War changes, Lemur. We know that, but some of the fundamentals remain the same or similar. Guns still hurt or kill people and people still call many of the shots. Guns/other weapons still have a somewhat equalizing effect on power relationships.

Also - both suggestions; that less guns are better for freedom or that more guns are better for freedom - may be correct. 20 very different roads can lead to a similar destination. Some might prefer 1 road, others another. The question of how to get there and why are still legitimate. I am of the opinion that freedom to defend ones self is extremely important, others would seek to specialize and outsource their own defense. My decision may have both positive and negative outcomes for myself and others, as will yours. (as you know Lemur, when I say "you" or "your's" i mean "anyone who is reading")

[Vuk]

It was me, alluding to the question of how many of the individuals were armed. If there were many armed people and they failed to use their weapons, that would weaken my point. If they were unarmed, it could suggest a somewhat altered outcome should they have been armed and would lead us to question whether casualties would have been higher or lower.

War changes, Lemur. We know that, but some of the fundamentals remain the same or similar. Guns still hurt or kill people and people still call many of the shots. Guns/other weapons still have a somewhat equalizing effect on power relationships.

Also - both suggestions; that less guns are better for freedom or that more guns are better for freedom - may be correct. 20 very different roads can lead to a similar destination. Some might prefer 1 road, others another. The question of how to get there and why are still legitimate. I am of the opinion that freedom to defend ones self is extremely important, others would seek to specialize and outsource their own defense. My decision may have both positive and negative outcomes for myself and others, as will yours. (as you know Lemur, when I say "you" or "your's" i mean "anyone who is reading")

Being armed is a fundamental part of freedom. The government, a dictator, a crime boss, etc. may allow you to do whatever you want for a long time, but that does not mean you are free. You can do what you want only because you are being allowed to do it. It is a like a 1950's housewife with a husband who allows her to mostly do what she wants. She has no real, concrete rights she can back up, and so her freedom is not real freedom, because it is only had at the mercy of another.

Guns are great equalizers. They give an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair a fighting chance. No, it will never make people completely equal, as a much healthier, most skilled person with a better weapon will have a significant advantage over a physically impaired, less skilled person with a worse weapon. Still though, it is enough of an equalizer to make the more skilled, better armed person serious reconsider attacking, even if they have the advantage.

As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.

It allows nearly anyone to become incredibly dangerous. We will never have equality or a world with very little crime until every individual is extremely dangerous, and every other individual and group thinks twice about depriving them of their rights. In such a world, even the most powerful would fear the least powerful. Good men always outnumber bad men, and a small, wealthy ruling minority would have to be afeared of the individually less powerful but far more numerous majority. Everyone owes it to themselves to be the most dangerous person they can be. (and no, I don't mean more dangerous as in doing bad things or being mentally unhinged, but as in having the potential to do great damage to someone who deprives them of their rights or tries to violate their person) If you are not willing to work for something, you don't really deserve it. If you are not willing to work for a paycheck, you don't deserve the paycheck. If you are not willing to work to safeguard yourself, and instead rely on others, then you have to reap the sometimes tragic consequences of relying on others for your safety.
Liberals are responsible for so many people dying, because they make them think it is wrong to try to be as dangerous as possible, and to try safeguard their own freedom and safety when others are not able to. The blood of those who die as a result stains the hands of all liberals who support things like gun-control.

[Lemur]

War changes, Lemur.

I gots me a Ron Perelman says you're wrong.

As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.

Oh for Pete's sake, it's almost two decades since there was any serious movement toward gun control in this country, and this latest tragedy isn't going to move the needle.

How long are gun rights advocate allowed to whine about the wicked gun-grabbers when nobody but Rupert Murdoch is talking about it? This is a settled issue for the moment, and indeed, for the foreseeable future.

Although I still maintain that if we're going to have needlessly dangerous things enshrined in law, I'd really like Bundesautobahns. It's a small thing to ask for, surely?

[Vuk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

I wouldn't be surprised if this cowardly bastard did not do this to make people more accepting of gun control and to scare people from seeing TDKR's percievably anti-Obama/occupy wallstreet message and thought he could just get away by faking insanity.

[Lemur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens. As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms.

I wouldn't be surprised if this cowardly bastard did not do this to make people more accepting of gun control and to scare people from seeing TDKR's percievably anti-Obama/occupy wallstreet message and thought he could just get away by faking insanity.

Vuk, friend, you're imputing political motivations to a madman who just killed a whole bunch of people. If the Columbine Massacre couldn't get America talking about gun regulation, why would anyone, even a loon, imagine that a single theater shooting would do it? More, the idiot will have his day in court, so we'll no doubt hear if he has some political game. Willing to bet if he does, it's pure lunacy, as with Brevik.

Moreover, you're doing a bit of a Rushbo by claiming there's an encoded partisan message in TDKR, which is, uh, so powerful, uh, that the evil libs need to shoot people. Or something.

Have you been hitting the cold medicine a bit much?

[Major Robert Dump]

It might have been me who mentioned people having guns in the theater, but I stated that the outcome probably would have been no different.

In fact, as of this moment, we do not know for sure that no one was carrying. People with guns run away, too.

The only way a gun might have been used without a high probability of incurring friendly casualties, is if the person with the gun was sitting in the front of the theater and managed to shoot this guy in a lethal spot before he got the smoke off. Keep in mind that body armor is not universal, so depending on the gun it may have done nothing or it may have gone straight through. Regardless, no one sitting in the middle, side or rear of the theater would be able to accurately take this guy down with people running for the exits, smoke obscuring views and the shooter inhaling smoke. A small number of humans have a very high tolerence to smoke/CS gas. The chances that someone could have taken this guy on without becoming a snot factory is pretty much nil. In fact, the police radio talk that was released has cops saying they cannot enter until they get gas masks

Also keep in mind that he started with the shotgun, which may have been so he could more easily strike any "heores" who tried to rush or shoot him.

[Papewaio]

My bet is that the only thing that gets banned are costumes at movie theatres.

Gun control does work. We have seen it happen here in Australia. Mind you we have essentially universal healthcare and free university. But our mental health care system is not good enough.

I think that liberty is best started at the poll booth. Luck would have it in Australia we have a great voting system and a high participation rate. Spurred on by compulsory voting, which really is compulsory turn up to the polling station and get your name ticked off (ruled through to be precise) funnily enough most people once they've done that proceed to vote.

Now we can be very technical and point out that guns don't kill people, bullets do. Blah blah snigger blah. The military and SWAT teams do not fight with feather dusters and irony, they use guns because they are a very effective tool in their trade and that is to eliminate a threat. Sure a feather duster could tickle someone to death but a gun is recognized as one of those implements that speeds up the process from a distance. If guns werent effective at killing people we would not see billions of dollars spent on equippIng our armies with them. But there is one thing that is being missed here is that armies also train the end users in how to use a gun, maintenance and warfare. The elite units get even more training.

So if you want the guns fine have fun with them. But if you want a truly effective means to fight an oppressive government you will need a well trained force. Also some technical knowledge in this age would help, after all small arms are not much of a use against drones.

[HoreTore]

Vuk, friend, you're imputing political motivations to a madman who just killed a whole bunch of people. If the Columbine Massacre couldn't get America talking about gun regulation, why would anyone, even a loon, imagine that a single theater shooting would do it? More, the idiot will have his day in court, so we'll no doubt hear if he has some political game. Willing to bet if he does, it's pure lunacy, as with Brevik.

Moreover, you're doing a bit of a Rushbo by claiming there's an encoded partisan message in TDKR, which is, uh, so powerful, uh, that the evil libs need to shoot people. Or something.

Have you been hitting the cold medicine a bit much?

The jury is still out on ABB, Lemur. The decision will be made on august 14th.

From the footage of the batman-trial, however, he looks a lot more insane. ABB was calm, focused and cold, right from the first hearing. The Joker didn't look like he was aware of his surroundings at all. (Looked like)A clear candidate for psychiatric care.

[Vuk]

The jury is still out on ABB, Lemur. The decision will be made on august 14th.

From the footage of the batman-trial, however, he looks a lot more insane. ABB was calm, focused and cold, right from the first hearing. The Joker didn't look like he was aware of his surroundings at all. A clear candidate for psychiatric care.

Are you guys stupid? I don't mean to be offensive, but really! These are two highly intelligent people who have been planning their attacks for at least a few months. They have research every facet of their plan. They are doing what they are doing, not because they are crazy, but because they are highly motivated and trying to accomplish a specific objective that they feel very strongly about (usually gun control). They are cowards though, who do not want to face the consequences. (which is why he surrendered immediately to the police...this is not a crazy guy, this is a guy who completed his mission and threw down his weapons) They act crazy so that they can help their cause without people martyrs. These guys are great actors, and have to be in order to not draw suspicion and to pull of their attacks in the first place. This guy was a very politically active member of the occupy movement. What he did will greatly help the leftist agenda. You think that is a coincidence? You don't think he considered that?

As to Lemur suggesting that TDKR does not have an anti-socialist (and therefore anti-Obama) theme, all I can think is that he has not seen the movie.

[Lemur]

they are highly motivated and trying to accomplish a specific objective that they feel very strongly about (usually gun control). [...] This guy was a very politically active member of the occupy movement. What he did will greatly help the leftist agenda.

Could you please post a source for all of that? Are you saying that Brevik and the Columbine shooters were trying to advance gun control? Or something? I'm having trouble following your flights of rhetoric.

-edit-

Did a little bit of Googling for your claim that the shooter is an Occupy brat. Appears the sole source of this is Florida private investigator Bill Warner, who does not have anything solid to back this claim up. Here's the originating article. Looks like Brian Ross all over again, but with a worse haircut.

You were saying something about people trying to politicize a tragedy?

[HoreTore]

Are you guys stupid? I don't mean to be offensive, but really! These are two highly intelligent people who have been planning their attacks for at least a few months. They have research every facet of their plan. They are doing what they are doing, not because they are crazy, but because they are highly motivated and trying to accomplish a specific objective that they feel very strongly about (usually gun control). They are cowards though, who do not want to face the consequences. (which is why he surrendered immediately to the police...this is not a crazy guy, this is a guy who completed his mission and threw down his weapons) They act crazy so that they can help their cause without people martyrs. These guys are great actors, and have to be in order to not draw suspicion and to pull of their attacks in the first place. This guy was a very politically active member of the occupy movement. What he did will greatly help the leftist agenda. You think that is a coincidence? You don't think he considered that?

As to Lemur suggesting that TDKR does not have an anti-socialist (and therefore anti-Obama) theme, all I can think is that he has not seen the movie.

I stated my source for my statement, which was footage from the trial. I made no bombastic conclusion as I don't have anything near the knowledge to do so, I simply said what it looked like to me.

When I don't have much knowledge of something, I try hard not to draw conclusions. I suggest you do the same, as you have obviously very little knowledge of ABB.

Edit: I edited the last sentence of my previous post, as I concede that it was far more bombastic than it was supposed to. It was supposed to follow onto the two previous "looks", but that wasn't very clear of me.

[Major Robert Dump]

Piddle all you want.

Violent crime in the US is at its lowest since the 1960s. Yet there are far more guns. And the cities in the US who have outright gun bans are absolute trainwrecks.

Would gun violence and accidents and suicides decrease with more gun control. OF COURSE. Just like we would have fewer auto deaths without cars, and fewer poisonings without Draino. This fact is irrelevant in the face of the fact that crime is lower. It just is. Sorry.

Gun control may work in your country, but it would take a long, long time to work in this one, if it ever worked at all. I am not willing to endure a few decades of not having a gun and being at the mercy of scum with guns (cops and thugs) before we eradicated all the guns. And yes, it would take decades, because as soon as we made guns illegal here they would start flowing over the mexican border on the blackmarket tip.

This is why, as Lemur states, gun control is a non issue now. We have the internet. We have the CDC, the FBI and the BJS websites to look at data all by ourselves, without having to rely on HuffPo and the Brady campaign. We can see that there is no armageddon.

[Papewaio]

Isn't there a pop statistics book saying that the decease in crime lagged legalised abortion by a generation. In other words crime decreased when women who could not successfully raise a fully functional member of society aborted the fetus.

Makes sense that if the components that make society are healthy then society is. Schools, families and individuals are the components of society. So preventative mental health for individuals, support for families and/or
The size and distribution of them, and make sure hat schools provide a healthy environment in education, play, food and socialization ir how to make friends 101

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't there a pop statistics book saying that the decease in crime lagged legalised abortion by a generation. In other words crime decreased when women who could not successfully raise a fully functional member of society aborted the fetus.

Yes, lets commit homicide of infants from low income families in order to prevent them from possibly becoming violent offenders. This just in; gassing the prison population and legalizing all criminal activity will have an even more marked effect. It was the hacks over at "freakonomics" who discovered that little bit of info.

[HoreTore]

Yes, lets commit homicide of infants from low income families in order to prevent them from possibly becoming violent offenders. This just in; gassing the prison population and legalizing all criminal activity will have an even more marked effect. It was the hacks over at "freakonomics" who discovered that little bit of info.

A fetus is, of course, not a human being.

The difference between having a baby at 17 versus having a baby at 26 is of course low income versus middle class. Allowing the 17-year old to have her baby at 26 instead means less hassle with the kid, as the poorer the family, the more social problems you get.


Yes!! Finally a gunbortion thread!!

[Montmorency]

Yet, as we all know babies are a gift from God, and we should always be creating more and more.

[HoreTore]

Yet, as we all know babies are a gift from God, and we should always be creating more and more.

Its only a matter of time before population control becomes a serious issue. It bothers me that you can't have a serious discussion of our options there in this country.

Meh, the number of kids naturally decrease as the wealth goes up, the problem will possibly fix itself.

Even so, I see no reason to make it convenient to have more than one or two kids.

[Major Robert Dump]

Awesome, a gunbortion thread.

I am not familiar with that book, Papeiwo, but to attribute a decrease in crime soley to low income abortion is a little one sided and a little classist. I am sure it has had some sort of an effect on lowering crime. But like I said before, our crime rates are at 1960s levels.

[Xiahou]

Isn't there a pop statistics book saying that the decease in crime lagged legalised abortion by a generation. In other words crime decreased when women who could not successfully raise a fully functional member of society aborted the fetus.

Oh trust me, there are plenty of women still having babies with no idea of how to successfully raise them.

On the OT, using the emotion surrounding a recent tragedy to push through regulation is never a good idea. Gun control aside, I've heard people now talking about how there should be security screenings for theaters and other gatherings now. Really? How many theater rampage shootings have there been? Anyone? And that's compared to how many movie screenings there have been? Is this really good justification for handing over more of our rights to the government? I think not.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just to pick up on this, the legislation in Australia in the OP was put in place directly after a tragedy and the result demonstrably had the desired effect. The problem isn't legislating based on tragedy, the problem is that the heightened emotions around tragedies can lead to ineffective legislation. That is a problem with legislators, not the idea itself. In this case we had a strong bi-partisan support for gun legislation (despite the fact that the sitting Prime Minister had the support of the pro-gun lobby) and the result that what needed to be done was done.

Correlation does not equal causation. Be very careful linking reduced gun violence to gun control, as the factors influencing that violence are numerous and the results of such policies are inconsistent at best. America has seen greatly reduced gun violence as ownership has increased, and the general trend in the West towards reduced violence has already been noted.

Australia certainly makes a strong case for gun control (if one is operating under the assumption that gun violence is statistically significant enough to warrant a reduction in rights), but the only thing truly demonstronstrable about Australian gun control is that Aussies now enjoy less personal freedom than their American counterparts.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A fetus is, of course, not a human being.

Of course it isn't... because it is, instead, a ______________

[PanzerJaeger]

Please no abortion.... Please! It's just become so trite.

[Montmorency]

When beggars break out the F-word, I can't help but sigh.

It seems a spurious concept to me, best forgotten.

[Major Robert Dump]

The TSA and the MPAA should get together and start doing pat downs. It would also be a good way to stop bootleg concessions from coming into the theater.

In fact.... i smell a conspiracy

[Ironside]

Being armed is a fundamental part of freedom. The government, a dictator, a crime boss, etc. may allow you to do whatever you want for a long time, but that does not mean you are free. You can do what you want only because you are being allowed to do it. It is a like a 1950's housewife with a husband who allows her to mostly do what she wants. She has no real, concrete rights she can back up, and so her freedom is not real freedom, because it is only had at the mercy of another.

Guns are great equalizers. They give an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair a fighting chance. No, it will never make people completely equal, as a much healthier, most skilled person with a better weapon will have a significant advantage over a physically impaired, less skilled person with a worse weapon. Still though, it is enough of an equalizer to make the more skilled, better armed person serious reconsider attacking, even if they have the advantage.

As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.

It allows nearly anyone to become incredibly dangerous. We will never have equality or a world with very little crime until every individual is extremely dangerous, and every other individual and group thinks twice about depriving them of their rights.

The last period in human history with this was called the Middle Ages. The murder rate has dropped 90-99% since then. And no, that's not because of nobility power abuse vs the normal population. That's because letting someone else having the monopoly on violence means that you don't need to pull your gun to defend your honour, show yourself to be dangerous or any other stupid reason violence is used in vain. Oh, and both sides are usually armed in gang murders, yet oddly enough, they're quite common.

The good outnumbers the bad as you said. What does this mean? Are criminals easier to catch? No, because no criminals in a western nations aren't safe because they outgun someone, it's because they can "hide" so to speak. More guns won't change that. It might, if the good old lynchmobs are coming back, but thier accuraccy are usually quite poor.
What the outnumbering does, is giving power to the people against the goverment. That's true. But it's vastly more efficient to use that power to influence those in power and prevent them from using the monopoly of violence against their own population. Can guns help against a dictorship? In some cases, yes. It does only help against the rise of a dictorship in it's final phase though. And it may as well backfire. A small scale rebellion will cement the new goverment's power and the belief that it will be the magic bullet will weaken earlier opposition.
For fun, a modern day peasant rebellion would be a violent underclass city rebellion. Eventually taken down, but forcing the goverment to reduce the burden for that class.