No, why do you ask?
Because if you concede that much then the question must be asked in each case “was this shooting legally justified or was it murder”. You present the impression of believing that it was murder 99.999% of the time, to the point of accusing the criminal justice system of complicity in oppression. If you believe that it’s murder “only” 75-85% of the time I’d be happy to hear it.
You always, always throw the authorities into the balance in these scenarios. To the point that I genuinely wonder why you think the pro-bigot mobs are necessary at all.
It’s far easier to let the mobs do the killing for free than to have the government do it all. Plus it’s not about “necessary”, they murder because they want to, not because they need to.
Read a little history.
And in our society, the only question that’s ever asked to determine that is “was the victim a black man with a gun”.
Or even “theoretically might have had a gun”. Or “he had a gun once we planted it on him”.
Which would seem to contradict your previous reply; I’m hearing “I’m not saying it’s aliens, but…”
That is the beauty of that argument: in America, anyone might have had a gun or been reaching for a gun. If that were not the case, why would run-of-the-mill cops even be carrying guns themselves?
Other than GB, “run of the mill” are armed in just about every nation- France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan. Mind you some of those do have unarmed units also.
Or it might put constraints on how well-armed they are willing for the population to be. And of course the way to change that is to go full-dictatorship.
Is full-dictatorship bad for business? Yes, of course. The national productivity, rate of innovation, and per-capita wealth will all plummet under dictatorship (disarmed or not).
But those at the top don’t care about any of those things. They care only about their own status, comfort, and power. If the nation declines it’s not their concern.
Would the pair of you please end this hijack now. It is off-topic.
Moderating:
The obvious counter example that disproves this is post WW2 eastern Europe.
Immediate post war Europe had more guns in circulation than any society in history. I can’t find exact numbers as Google sucks now*, but more than people I think (and if not, it definitely had more military guns and people trained to fight with them, than modern day US, a 9mm handgun is not going to you much good against a dictator’s fully armed and armored military).
How effective were those guns against the Red Army when Stalin decided he wanted those eastern European nations to be Communist dictatorship (after the fact they then, as any gun nut will tell you, implemented strict gun laws but when they seized power they were loads and loads of guns in circulation)
And as I mentioned earlier Sddam Hussein never bothers with gun control in Iraq; it was the Americans who imposed it.
Exactly. They have been conditioning their constituency to not only accept a dictatorship but to actually view it in a favorable light. Remember, the Roman senate actually GAVE Caesar absolute power, he didn’t have to take it by force. Also, the Reichstag did pretty much the same thing with Hitler.
There was some ultimately failed anti-Soviet partisanship; but consider the context. For four years or more the peoples of Eastern Europe were effectively faced with the choice of supporting Hitler or supporting Stalin. Most of the people prepared to oppose Stalin had done so by supporting Hitler, and they lost. Many if not most of the people who supported Stalin employed enough cognitive dissonance to believe that the Soviets were on the side of good and right, or at least peace and order, or at least weren’t Nazis engaged in open genocide. The war left Eastern Europe scoured bare, starving and the population denuded. Resisting the Soviet Union post-war would have been like first fighting an heavyweight champion boxer to the distance, and then having to begin a second match.
Yeah but that only shows the factors that allow dictatorship have nothing to do with availability of weapons. The “fall of the iron curtain” is the establishment one of the largest blocks of long term dictatorships in all human history and it coincided with the highest available of civilian firearms in history.
Similarly, Hitler didn’t disarm the German people; the occupying Allies did after the war.
By which I mean the raising of the iron curtain, not fall 
I don’t think a worst-case scenario for a civilian partisan resistance can fairly be considered proof of arms being irrelevant. I would view arms as “necessary but not sufficient”.
Indeed.
Going back to the Thread Title and OP, there is another element at play here. Notice the phrase “true dictatorship” and wonder if you hear Scotsmen arguing. Because you will have a lot of people who, if you do not wind up with a fully totalitarian state but just an Illiberal Republic run by one single family or party "machine , but where they are not being particularly abused directly, will say it’s not a dictatorship and not tyranny so nothing to rebel against.