4 ms·

I am wondering if the difference is related to the underlying economical forces. The world of guns is somewhat driven by money (selling guns, gun training cent

by jknz 10y ago

I am wondering if the difference is related to the underlying economical forces. The world of guns is somewhat driven by money (selling guns, gun training centers, gun magazines etc). The world of privacy advocates is not money driven. Maybe privacy will gain traction with economics and money, not ideology.

hga 10y ago
Doubt it, there's not all that much money in the gun industry as these things go. As far as I can tell, which I went into some detail in a previous discussion on this exact topic (I'll find it if you want), is that the difference is gun owners were driven by decades of stark atrocities committed by government agents and agencies. As of yet, in the US, we just don't have those. Heck, things like parallel construction to take down drug dealers no doubt have the support of the majority of the country, along I suspect pretty much every axis (it's frightening talking to a parent who is so terrified his kids will get on drugs that he prefers they live in a police state). So as long as the government's visible use of surveillance doesn't result in excesses of blood and death, I don't think our example will be helpful in getting an anti-surveillance movement off the ground.
- whybroke 10y ago
  >gun owners were driven by decades of stark atrocities committed by government agents This is a revisionist narrative only recently adopted. Gun ownership and lobbying for same began immediately after the civil rights movement and all language around it until recently was about protecting the white race (with an occasional sprinkling of 'self defense' rhetoric sprinkled in) A real conversation is only going to happen when we admit the only reason for owning a gun is because it's entertaining. The 'single gun man defending democracy' narrative just makes the proponent look as ridiculous as his words.
  - thinkmassive 10y ago
    Gun ownership began after the civil rights movement? You're entitled to your opinions, but this just makes you sound ridiculous.
    - whybroke 10y ago
      Sorry, I had written and removed something a bit snide like 'the fetishization of...' the edit left a bit of incoherence. And, if my opinion maters, I don't deprecate gun ownership automatically. But I do think the only path to an optimal outcome is an honest discussion about its true purpose and consequences.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > Gun ownership and lobbying for same began immediately after the civil rights movement and all language around it until recently was about protecting the white race (with an occasional sprinkling of 'self defense' rhetoric sprinkled in) That is actually revisionist itself. Just to give a simple example, immediately after the Civil Rights Movement, Texas of all states - the stereotypical place of "crazy rednecks with guns" - prohibited both open and concealed carry of firearms until 1995. Of course, it wasn't a new policy, either. The law in question was originally enacted in 1871. Now, if you know your history, that date might look curious, because this is shortly after the Civil War, and at the peak of the Reconstruction. So you might have a hunch that it might just have something to do with all the black slaves who suddenly became freemen, with all the civil rights of citizens - including the right to keep and bear arms (and use it to, say, defend themselves against any white lynch mobs). Which would be broadly correct. Especially when you remember that laws can (and were, in the South) selectively enforced; and that criminal prosecution requires trial by jury, and an all-white jury could always (and did) acquit a white guy with no explanation if some overzealous prosecutor decided to press charges. This is a very convenient arrangement that 70 years later was concisely described by Getúlio Vargas, the dictator of Brazil, as "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." This had also proven quite handy during the Civil Rights era against "agitators" (i.e. activists coming from other states to help Blacks register to vote, document cases of illegal hurdles etc). Much easier to assemble a mob if you know the target will fight back with fists at most. Same thing happened in most other Southern states. If you look at when their gun restrictions went into effect, it was usually either in the last years of the Reconstruction, or during the Jim Crow era. Another interesting example is California. It's well known for its restrictive gun laws today, but few remember that the guy who started that ball rolling was governor Ronald Reagan, and the reason why he did it was this action by the Black Panthers on the steps of the California Capitol: https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/B3E067E0E1869B58EF1C6C19D26A6F6D1-1920x1000-c-top.jpg https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/B3E067E0... And newspapers described it thus: http://thepriceofsafety.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/5/6/27566015/5718767_orig.jpg http://thepriceofsafety.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/5/6/27566015/... The law itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act - dates to 1967, so basically immediately after the Civil Rights Acts. It wasn't until late 70s that American conservatives have actually started embracing gun rights. And I won't dispute that part of it was a reaction [of fear] to CRA and such, once it became clear that the whole "states rights" thing wasn't going to work. But it's worth remembering that, for the most part, the laws that they were repealing left and right were enacted for similar reasons in the first place.
int_19h 10y ago
There's no particular benefit derived by the "gun lobby" from less surveillance and registrations, though. So long as guns remain legal, they will sell. If some category becomes illegal, the gun manufacturers won't be able to sell them anyway; whether the government could also go after any existing owners of those guns or not is not particularly relevant.

by jknz 10y ago

hga 10y ago

Doubt it, there's not all that much money in the gun industry as these things go. As far as I can tell, which I went into some detail in a previous discussion on this exact topic (I'll find it if you want), is that the difference is gun owners were driven by decades of stark atrocities committed by government agents and agencies. As of yet, in the US, we just don't have those. Heck, things like parallel construction to take down drug dealers no doubt have the support of the majority of the country, along I suspect pretty much every axis (it's frightening talking to a parent who is so terrified his kids will get on drugs that he prefers they live in a police state). So as long as the government's visible use of surveillance doesn't result in excesses of blood and death, I don't think our example will be helpful in getting an anti-surveillance movement off the ground.

whybroke 10y ago
>gun owners were driven by decades of stark atrocities committed by government agents This is a revisionist narrative only recently adopted. Gun ownership and lobbying for same began immediately after the civil rights movement and all language around it until recently was about protecting the white race (with an occasional sprinkling of 'self defense' rhetoric sprinkled in) A real conversation is only going to happen when we admit the only reason for owning a gun is because it's entertaining. The 'single gun man defending democracy' narrative just makes the proponent look as ridiculous as his words.
- thinkmassive 10y ago
  Gun ownership began after the civil rights movement? You're entitled to your opinions, but this just makes you sound ridiculous.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    Sorry, I had written and removed something a bit snide like 'the fetishization of...' the edit left a bit of incoherence. And, if my opinion maters, I don't deprecate gun ownership automatically. But I do think the only path to an optimal outcome is an honest discussion about its true purpose and consequences.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > Gun ownership and lobbying for same began immediately after the civil rights movement and all language around it until recently was about protecting the white race (with an occasional sprinkling of 'self defense' rhetoric sprinkled in) That is actually revisionist itself. Just to give a simple example, immediately after the Civil Rights Movement, Texas of all states - the stereotypical place of "crazy rednecks with guns" - prohibited both open and concealed carry of firearms until 1995. Of course, it wasn't a new policy, either. The law in question was originally enacted in 1871. Now, if you know your history, that date might look curious, because this is shortly after the Civil War, and at the peak of the Reconstruction. So you might have a hunch that it might just have something to do with all the black slaves who suddenly became freemen, with all the civil rights of citizens - including the right to keep and bear arms (and use it to, say, defend themselves against any white lynch mobs). Which would be broadly correct. Especially when you remember that laws can (and were, in the South) selectively enforced; and that criminal prosecution requires trial by jury, and an all-white jury could always (and did) acquit a white guy with no explanation if some overzealous prosecutor decided to press charges. This is a very convenient arrangement that 70 years later was concisely described by Getúlio Vargas, the dictator of Brazil, as "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." This had also proven quite handy during the Civil Rights era against "agitators" (i.e. activists coming from other states to help Blacks register to vote, document cases of illegal hurdles etc). Much easier to assemble a mob if you know the target will fight back with fists at most. Same thing happened in most other Southern states. If you look at when their gun restrictions went into effect, it was usually either in the last years of the Reconstruction, or during the Jim Crow era. Another interesting example is California. It's well known for its restrictive gun laws today, but few remember that the guy who started that ball rolling was governor Ronald Reagan, and the reason why he did it was this action by the Black Panthers on the steps of the California Capitol: https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/B3E067E0E1869B58EF1C6C19D26A6F6D1-1920x1000-c-top.jpg https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/B3E067E0... And newspapers described it thus: http://thepriceofsafety.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/5/6/27566015/5718767_orig.jpg http://thepriceofsafety.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/5/6/27566015/... The law itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act - dates to 1967, so basically immediately after the Civil Rights Acts. It wasn't until late 70s that American conservatives have actually started embracing gun rights. And I won't dispute that part of it was a reaction [of fear] to CRA and such, once it became clear that the whole "states rights" thing wasn't going to work. But it's worth remembering that, for the most part, the laws that they were repealing left and right were enacted for similar reasons in the first place.

int_19h 10y ago

There's no particular benefit derived by the "gun lobby" from less surveillance and registrations, though. So long as guns remain legal, they will sell. If some category becomes illegal, the gun manufacturers won't be able to sell them anyway; whether the government could also go after any existing owners of those guns or not is not particularly relevant.