Mr Khan said:
Studies show that as far as crime goes, it either doesn't make a difference or helps in a small way (that is, more gun availability), but for use in political situations, arming the opposition absolutely, positively makes things far worse than they were, because it gives the oppressors an excuse to gun them down. If the protestors were shooting back, it'd be civil war already, whereas a peaceful solution is still perfectly possible (Ukraine just declared a "truce" in their present unrest, for instance). |
Eh, i would argue that guns are a complete non-factor.
Revolution vs peaceful protests instead mostly being a cultural thing based on particular situation.
It's not like the Ukraine is in an area where it's hard to get illegal guns. Hell, they've considered getting rid of their gun laws as early as 2012 specifically because of how easy it is to own a gun.
and the gun ownership levels of the Ukraine are about half what the government owns. There are plenty of guns out there to start a shooting revolution
The Reason it hasn't... is cultural. Protesters pretty rarely start shooting contests.
Shooting revolutions start... when the governments start shooting because they don't have proper control.
Shooting revolutions don't happen in places where guns are around, because, there is nobody to shoot back.
The protestors get shot... and that's basically it... unless they get some support from the government.
Soldiers don't like to shoot their own people armed or not.








