4 ms·

The strongest argument against gun control you will ever find.

by Tycho 9y ago

lumberjack 9y ago
Not to say anything about gun control, but being Latin America, they could as easily, have been communists arming themselves to overthrow a right-wing government. Would you also be supportive of them?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  What do you mean by "right-wing"?
  - ionised 9y ago
    'Right-wing', as in opposite of 'left-wing'
  - chiph 9y ago
    The term goes back to the French Revolution: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-is-the-origin-for-left-being-used-to-indicate-socialist-liberals-and-right https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-is-th...
- Tycho 9y ago
  I'm supportive of widespread gun ownership (or the right to acquire guns) so that the public can not be easily pushed around by some tyrant and his brownshirts/paramilitary/secret-police/goons. Goons not so useful if they face the threat of armed resistance. Does that answer your question?
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Then you'll be happy in chaotic countries where gun ownership is high, like Somalia and Yemen. Still hasn't helped them solve their problems, however. I'm not sure it has ever worked, but it definitely allows for self defense when law and order break down.
    - Tycho 9y ago
      Happier in an orderly country where gun ownership is high, like Switzerland. I'm not saying it's the only thing you need.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Switzerland is one of those high responsibility countries though, so you might not be so happy living there. In that, they require you to store your gun safely at home, they have the right to verify that, you have to own liability insurance if your weapon isn't just for militia reasons (and if it is, usually the bullets are stored somewhere else other than your home). I'm all for gun ownership the Swiss way in America, but many pro-gun people would go nuts over the responsibility aspect. Same with everything else in Switzerland (a lot of enforced personal responsibility, e.g. you have to buy health insurance, where do you think Romney/Obama got Romney/ObamaCare from?). With rights should come responsibilities.
microcolonel 9y ago
Pretty good argument against socialism as well; since it seems that they piled on the expenses until they either had to compromise services or compromise fundamental property rights. The obvious choice for one's own term in office is to compromise property rights. Now, say, what country do we know of which prospered under a non-socialist government which recognized the right to keep and bear arms, and strong recognition of property rights... P.S. Consider replying before you vote, it'll be a heck of a lot more convincing than a decreasing counter of non-argument.
- soVeryTired 9y ago
  You chose the wrong word when you said "socialism". Socialism is a spectrum. Many aspects of the US are socialist. Scandinavia has implemented notably socialist policies. When was the last time they 'compromised fundamental property rights'? I think you're arguing against a certain type of authoritarianism.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > You chose the wrong word when you said "socialism". Socialism is a spectrum. Gun control is also a spectrum, but you can call it gun control for every step on the scale, not just when every gun is banned for everyone. > Many aspects of the US are socialist. Yes, and those aspects are an immense burden on society, and often achieve the precise opposite of the stated goals. To the extent that these policies successfully achieve goals, it is unclear that these goals weren't already being met. The policies characteristic of the "war on poverty" are not correlated with any positive outcome for the rate of poverty. > Scandinavia has implemented notably socialist policies. To the extent that each Scandinavian country is socialist, it is having trouble funding the policies. Norway noticed this was happening in the early '80s and course corrected by slashing taxes and regulations. Sweden had a lot more runway, but they're starting to feel the weight of the promises their social programs made. Denmark could not be described as very socialist today. Sweden is both the most socialist, and the most troubled of the three Scandinavian nations despite having a lot of industrial momentum in engineering and energy.
ttmmp 9y ago
Yeah indeed, because they wouldn't have been able to arrest them if they had guns of course.. \s
ATsch 9y ago
How so? How would having a gun in a cupboard or somewhere help you in a situation like this? Once you are at gunpoint it's game over, regardless of gun control. It's easy to imagine this is hollywood where the hero easily escapes from gunpoint with kung fu ninja skills while the evil mastermind explains the master plan but that isn't a realistic scenario. EDIT: is it just me or did this say something about airports before?
- Tycho 9y ago
  A few years ago the government banned civilian ownership of guns. Then, a few months ago they announced the arming of a half-million strong militia. Now they are rounding up political opposition at gunpoint. Yes, I do think it is easier to send your goons to round up enemies when only your goons have guns, and don't need to worry about getting their heads blown off. Now with they can proceed to round up whoever else they need to take care of. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4419630/Venezuelas-Maduro-seeks-expand-armed-civilian-militias.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4419630/Venezuel...
- nemo44x 9y ago
  An armed society can retaliate and react to these types of actions. As they add up and become too much an armed society can gather to fight a despot who has continually abused their power to take away inalienable rights of the people. An armed society can more easily get the backing of military generals and form a credible resistance quickly. An armed society might make a potential despot think twice about going down that route. In the scenario you describe, you're right. But as a government continues this type of abuse eventually an armed society can rebel against it. It is their responsibility to rebel against it. An unarmed society is crippled in this regard.
- justadeveloper2 9y ago
  Well, because when they come knocking at your door to carry you off you get to shoot one or two before they kill you. Those one or two will not make it to the next house. Do you understand how this disincentive works now?

The strongest argument against gun control you will ever find.

by Tycho 9y ago

The strongest argument against gun control you will ever find.

Not to say anything about gun control, but being Latin America, they could as easily, have been communists arming themselves to overthrow a right-wing government. Would you also be supportive of them?

microcolonel 9y ago
What do you mean by "right-wing"?
- ionised 9y ago
  'Right-wing', as in opposite of 'left-wing'
- chiph 9y ago
  The term goes back to the French Revolution: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-is-the-origin-for-left-being-used-to-indicate-socialist-liberals-and-right https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26029/what-is-th...
Tycho 9y ago
I'm supportive of widespread gun ownership (or the right to acquire guns) so that the public can not be easily pushed around by some tyrant and his brownshirts/paramilitary/secret-police/goons. Goons not so useful if they face the threat of armed resistance. Does that answer your question?
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Then you'll be happy in chaotic countries where gun ownership is high, like Somalia and Yemen. Still hasn't helped them solve their problems, however. I'm not sure it has ever worked, but it definitely allows for self defense when law and order break down.
  - Tycho 9y ago
    Happier in an orderly country where gun ownership is high, like Switzerland. I'm not saying it's the only thing you need.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Switzerland is one of those high responsibility countries though, so you might not be so happy living there. In that, they require you to store your gun safely at home, they have the right to verify that, you have to own liability insurance if your weapon isn't just for militia reasons (and if it is, usually the bullets are stored somewhere else other than your home). I'm all for gun ownership the Swiss way in America, but many pro-gun people would go nuts over the responsibility aspect. Same with everything else in Switzerland (a lot of enforced personal responsibility, e.g. you have to buy health insurance, where do you think Romney/Obama got Romney/ObamaCare from?). With rights should come responsibilities.

microcolonel 9y ago

Pretty good argument against socialism as well; since it seems that they piled on the expenses until they either had to compromise services or compromise fundamental property rights. The obvious choice for one's own term in office is to compromise property rights. Now, say, what country do we know of which prospered under a non-socialist government which recognized the right to keep and bear arms, and strong recognition of property rights... P.S. Consider replying before you vote, it'll be a heck of a lot more convincing than a decreasing counter of non-argument.

soVeryTired 9y ago
You chose the wrong word when you said "socialism". Socialism is a spectrum. Many aspects of the US are socialist. Scandinavia has implemented notably socialist policies. When was the last time they 'compromised fundamental property rights'? I think you're arguing against a certain type of authoritarianism.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > You chose the wrong word when you said "socialism". Socialism is a spectrum. Gun control is also a spectrum, but you can call it gun control for every step on the scale, not just when every gun is banned for everyone. > Many aspects of the US are socialist. Yes, and those aspects are an immense burden on society, and often achieve the precise opposite of the stated goals. To the extent that these policies successfully achieve goals, it is unclear that these goals weren't already being met. The policies characteristic of the "war on poverty" are not correlated with any positive outcome for the rate of poverty. > Scandinavia has implemented notably socialist policies. To the extent that each Scandinavian country is socialist, it is having trouble funding the policies. Norway noticed this was happening in the early '80s and course corrected by slashing taxes and regulations. Sweden had a lot more runway, but they're starting to feel the weight of the promises their social programs made. Denmark could not be described as very socialist today. Sweden is both the most socialist, and the most troubled of the three Scandinavian nations despite having a lot of industrial momentum in engineering and energy.

ttmmp 9y ago

Yeah indeed, because they wouldn't have been able to arrest them if they had guns of course.. \s

ATsch 9y ago

How so? How would having a gun in a cupboard or somewhere help you in a situation like this? Once you are at gunpoint it's game over, regardless of gun control. It's easy to imagine this is hollywood where the hero easily escapes from gunpoint with kung fu ninja skills while the evil mastermind explains the master plan but that isn't a realistic scenario. EDIT: is it just me or did this say something about airports before?

Tycho 9y ago
A few years ago the government banned civilian ownership of guns. Then, a few months ago they announced the arming of a half-million strong militia. Now they are rounding up political opposition at gunpoint. Yes, I do think it is easier to send your goons to round up enemies when only your goons have guns, and don't need to worry about getting their heads blown off. Now with they can proceed to round up whoever else they need to take care of. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4419630/Venezuelas-Maduro-seeks-expand-armed-civilian-militias.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4419630/Venezuel...
nemo44x 9y ago
An armed society can retaliate and react to these types of actions. As they add up and become too much an armed society can gather to fight a despot who has continually abused their power to take away inalienable rights of the people. An armed society can more easily get the backing of military generals and form a credible resistance quickly. An armed society might make a potential despot think twice about going down that route. In the scenario you describe, you're right. But as a government continues this type of abuse eventually an armed society can rebel against it. It is their responsibility to rebel against it. An unarmed society is crippled in this regard.
justadeveloper2 9y ago
Well, because when they come knocking at your door to carry you off you get to shoot one or two before they kill you. Those one or two will not make it to the next house. Do you understand how this disincentive works now?