5 ms·

I am quite pro-gun, and terrorism doesn't even register on the reasons why. I believe the same could be said of most everyone I know in that community. It's no

I am quite pro-gun, and terrorism doesn't even register on the reasons why. I believe the same could be said of most everyone I know in that community. It's not about fear; it's primarily about a worldview that centers on individuality and distrust of government.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
It was really meant more tongue in cheek than it came across. Politicians just need to stop with the terrorism war chanting, period.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  No argument here on that front :)
developer2 11y ago
I've never understood this argument. The day you pull a gun on "government" is the day you will be killed on the spot, or sentenced to death row, or sent to life in prison with no chance of parole. You will be permanently removed from your comfortable life, and whomever takes that life away from you will face no penalty for doing so. So you own a handgun? The government will have assault rifles. Oh, you own an assault-like rifle? The government will have RPG's and grenades. It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose. We hear this argument from Americans every single time this topic is brought up. "It's to keep the government in check!". What a load of horse crap. Every time, we only hear repeated "Constitution! Constitution!". Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms. It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.
- over 11y ago
  > It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose. I think this isn't true if enough people decide to attack the government in concert, say 10% of the population, that's 30 million people. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up. But probably, knives would suffice for that purpose. Or just not showing up for work.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up Which is why state police and then the National Guard and then other branches of the military become involved in any serious unrest. E.g. Ferguson for an extremely recent example. > say 10% of the population Overwhlemingly dispersed throughout suburban and rural populations that are far more easily controlled than a large urban uprising. And also, it would take extraordinary circumstances to find 10% of the population willing to commit to an armed revolution. If you have that many people that angry, odds are that the democratic process would work far better anyways. That's the rub with this fantasy and why it hasn't happened in recent memory -- once that many people are that angry, they probably have a sympathetic majority anyways. Keep in mind that the United States has 2mil+ prisoners and has absolutely no problem keeping the police. If we assume only a small fraction of people who could land in prison actually do, then it's entirely possible that 10% of the population is or was at one point at danger of being locked up and still would never commit to an armed insurrection. Also, only ~60% of the US even votes. So 10% is a truly huge number. Actually, the most ironic thing about this part of the gun debate is that the people who are least persecuted by actual systemic violence against subpopulations of the United States both 1) insist that this violence doesn't exist or is justified; and 2) worry about their own non-existent completely hypothetical persecution at some vague distant point in the future. All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit.
    - LyndsySimon 11y ago
tonyedgecombe 11y ago
>It's not about fear; it's primarily about a worldview that centers on individuality and distrust of government. Sounds like fear to me.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  Distrust is not the same thing as fear. I distrust my toddler, because she is incapable of making rational choices. I'm not going to let her walk across a parking lot by herself. I distrust a venomous snake for the same reasons. I'm also extremely cautious around them, because they can cause pain or death if mishandled. That doesn't mean I'm afraid of them.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

It was really meant more tongue in cheek than it came across. Politicians just need to stop with the terrorism war chanting, period.

LyndsySimon 11y ago
No argument here on that front :)

developer2 11y ago

I've never understood this argument. The day you pull a gun on "government" is the day you will be killed on the spot, or sentenced to death row, or sent to life in prison with no chance of parole. You will be permanently removed from your comfortable life, and whomever takes that life away from you will face no penalty for doing so. So you own a handgun? The government will have assault rifles. Oh, you own an assault-like rifle? The government will have RPG's and grenades. It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose. We hear this argument from Americans every single time this topic is brought up. "It's to keep the government in check!". What a load of horse crap. Every time, we only hear repeated "Constitution! Constitution!". Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms. It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.

over 11y ago
> It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose. I think this isn't true if enough people decide to attack the government in concert, say 10% of the population, that's 30 million people. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up. But probably, knives would suffice for that purpose. Or just not showing up for work.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up Which is why state police and then the National Guard and then other branches of the military become involved in any serious unrest. E.g. Ferguson for an extremely recent example. > say 10% of the population Overwhlemingly dispersed throughout suburban and rural populations that are far more easily controlled than a large urban uprising. And also, it would take extraordinary circumstances to find 10% of the population willing to commit to an armed revolution. If you have that many people that angry, odds are that the democratic process would work far better anyways. That's the rub with this fantasy and why it hasn't happened in recent memory -- once that many people are that angry, they probably have a sympathetic majority anyways. Keep in mind that the United States has 2mil+ prisoners and has absolutely no problem keeping the police. If we assume only a small fraction of people who could land in prison actually do, then it's entirely possible that 10% of the population is or was at one point at danger of being locked up and still would never commit to an armed insurrection. Also, only ~60% of the US even votes. So 10% is a truly huge number. Actually, the most ironic thing about this part of the gun debate is that the people who are least persecuted by actual systemic violence against subpopulations of the United States both 1) insist that this violence doesn't exist or is justified; and 2) worry about their own non-existent completely hypothetical persecution at some vague distant point in the future. All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit.
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago

tonyedgecombe 11y ago

>It's not about fear; it's primarily about a worldview that centers on individuality and distrust of government. Sounds like fear to me.

LyndsySimon 11y ago
Distrust is not the same thing as fear. I distrust my toddler, because she is incapable of making rational choices. I'm not going to let her walk across a parking lot by herself. I distrust a venomous snake for the same reasons. I'm also extremely cautious around them, because they can cause pain or death if mishandled. That doesn't mean I'm afraid of them.