4 ms·

> so maybe the US does qualify as a war zone. It sure does. We are constantly at war against tyranny and citizen owned guns are one of our best weapons. I don'

by ythn 9y ago

> so maybe the US does qualify as a war zone. It sure does. We are constantly at war against tyranny and citizen owned guns are one of our best weapons. I don't think any other "developed country" has been democratic as long as we have without lapsing back into tyranny every other century.

oblio 9y ago
1. Are you sure about the correlation between the two? 2. Off the top of my head, the UK, France, Sweden, etc. have been democratic since at least the end of the 19th century.
- ythn 9y ago
  > Are you sure about the correlation between the two? No, but can you point to any effective tyrannies where the citizens can freely buy and own guns? It seems as though a universal prerequisite to tyranny is gun control. > Off the top of my head, the UK, France, Sweden, etc. have been democratic since at least the end of the 19th century. That's not very long. It turns out that long term democracies are really hard and without constantly reinforcing checks against tyranny, you'll find your country has slipped back into one before you know it. It's happening right now with Turkey.
  - oblio 9y ago
    The best defense against tyranny is an educated populated, not guns. Look at what's happening in the US right now, despite it being brimming with guns.
    - ythn 9y ago
      I agree. But just because education is the best defense doesn't mean it should be the only defense. Guns are literally the very last resort to prevent tyranny after all other safeguards have failed.
      - oblio 9y ago
        They come with a ton of downsides... I'm European, I don't think that the benefits outweigh the downsides. If my country is at the point where there's enough popular support for a tyrannical government to take root, things are already lost. In 1989 in Romania not even our generals had the guts to shoot our own citizens, despite being drilled for it during 40 years of very oppressive Communist dictatorships. Why? Because they knew that the government didn't really have popular support. Your Turkish example isn't fully representative since Turkey hasn't ever had a stable democratic regime for more than ~15 years. Even Atatürk, who was a great man in most regards, was more of a benevolent dictator for life than a fully democratic figure head.
        ythn 9y ago
        Guns come with downsides, true. But so do a lot of freedoms. Alcohol? Do the benefits of alcohol outweigh the downsides? I would argue alcohol has an even worse impact on society than guns. Of course you'll say "yes, but regulating alcohol is impossible, at least regulating guns is feasible". Yet, we can sleep at night knowing our favorite vice kills tens of thousands every year in the US alone (not to mention the mental health issues and child abuse that stems from it...). Education is effective. If education is an effective tool to combat alcohol abuse, it can be an effective tool to combat gun abuse as well. Europe should want guns even more than America. It wasn't that long ago that Germany was blitzkrieging across borders and the citizens were defenseless. It would have never worked in America because as soon as the Germans drove over the border, millions of American civilians (not soldiers) would be pulling out their family rifles and gunning down the German soldiers from every side.
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
Interesting, could you point out some recent (anytime post 1780s) examples of the armed US citizenry using our weapons to defend against tyranny?
- ythn 9y ago
  Guns are are more like mosquito repellent with tyranny being the mosquito. I.e. it's usually a passive defense against tyranny not an active one. I can give you examples of countries where guns are banned and the governments eventually rode roughshod over the citizens (who couldn't do anything about it): For example, when the Jong-Il family came to power in N. Korea they cracked down extremely heavily on gun ownership to ensure armed uprisings were impossible. It has been an extremely effective measure and now N. Korea has the lowest gun homicide rate in the world.

by ythn 9y ago

oblio 9y ago

1. Are you sure about the correlation between the two? 2. Off the top of my head, the UK, France, Sweden, etc. have been democratic since at least the end of the 19th century.

ythn 9y ago
> Are you sure about the correlation between the two? No, but can you point to any effective tyrannies where the citizens can freely buy and own guns? It seems as though a universal prerequisite to tyranny is gun control. > Off the top of my head, the UK, France, Sweden, etc. have been democratic since at least the end of the 19th century. That's not very long. It turns out that long term democracies are really hard and without constantly reinforcing checks against tyranny, you'll find your country has slipped back into one before you know it. It's happening right now with Turkey.
- oblio 9y ago
  The best defense against tyranny is an educated populated, not guns. Look at what's happening in the US right now, despite it being brimming with guns.
  - ythn 9y ago
    I agree. But just because education is the best defense doesn't mean it should be the only defense. Guns are literally the very last resort to prevent tyranny after all other safeguards have failed.
    - oblio 9y ago
      They come with a ton of downsides... I'm European, I don't think that the benefits outweigh the downsides. If my country is at the point where there's enough popular support for a tyrannical government to take root, things are already lost. In 1989 in Romania not even our generals had the guts to shoot our own citizens, despite being drilled for it during 40 years of very oppressive Communist dictatorships. Why? Because they knew that the government didn't really have popular support. Your Turkish example isn't fully representative since Turkey hasn't ever had a stable democratic regime for more than ~15 years. Even Atatürk, who was a great man in most regards, was more of a benevolent dictator for life than a fully democratic figure head.
      - ythn 9y ago
        Guns come with downsides, true. But so do a lot of freedoms. Alcohol? Do the benefits of alcohol outweigh the downsides? I would argue alcohol has an even worse impact on society than guns. Of course you'll say "yes, but regulating alcohol is impossible, at least regulating guns is feasible". Yet, we can sleep at night knowing our favorite vice kills tens of thousands every year in the US alone (not to mention the mental health issues and child abuse that stems from it...). Education is effective. If education is an effective tool to combat alcohol abuse, it can be an effective tool to combat gun abuse as well. Europe should want guns even more than America. It wasn't that long ago that Germany was blitzkrieging across borders and the citizens were defenseless. It would have never worked in America because as soon as the Germans drove over the border, millions of American civilians (not soldiers) would be pulling out their family rifles and gunning down the German soldiers from every side.

MaxfordAndSons 9y ago

Interesting, could you point out some recent (anytime post 1780s) examples of the armed US citizenry using our weapons to defend against tyranny?

ythn 9y ago
Guns are are more like mosquito repellent with tyranny being the mosquito. I.e. it's usually a passive defense against tyranny not an active one. I can give you examples of countries where guns are banned and the governments eventually rode roughshod over the citizens (who couldn't do anything about it): For example, when the Jong-Il family came to power in N. Korea they cracked down extremely heavily on gun ownership to ensure armed uprisings were impossible. It has been an extremely effective measure and now N. Korea has the lowest gun homicide rate in the world.