Who is more dangerous to children armed civilian criminals or armed government criminals?

[Sixgunsound]

The answers to this question will determine whether the poster cares about children or their politics.

[LazerBean]

The answer varies. Right now in the US, an armed criminal is more dangerous. In the 30's and 40's Europe, the answer would be resoundingly an armed government.

A better question with a more consistent answer would be which child is safer, one with an armed guardian one second away, or one with an armed government 30 minutes away?

[Sixgunsound]

That is a different question altogether, I was going for how many children do governments kill annually, how much irreversible trauma and brain damage is caused to children by governments, how many children are drugged by governments, how many children are locked into lives of poverty and despair by governments, how many children are abused in some way by government officials who would not otherwise be able to if they did not have their power over the children themselves, their parents, or both?

[LazerBean]

Ah okay, I gotcha. Sorry, I mistook your post as some sort of anti-gun point.

[Sixgunsound]

Your question is still excellent and highly relevant.

[LazerBean]

Thank you, sir.

[Anonymous]

Insurgents and rebels are more dangerous to children.
Children have nothing to fear from the State, only from the human scum that opposes the Nation.

[Sixgunsound]

Ok Stalin

[007kingifrit]

in the grand picture? government forces have killed more people in history

[Sixgunsound]

Over 100 million in the 20th century alone.