4 ms·

Or you could fight for a system that never gives him that badge in the first place. Guns solve short term problems. They don’t overturn tyranny. Arguments, bel

Or you could fight for a system that never gives him that badge in the first place. Guns solve short term problems. They don’t overturn tyranny. Arguments, beliefs, and convictions do that.

raverbashing 9y ago
> They don’t overturn tyranny. Arguments, beliefs, and convictions do that. Try that against the Mexican drug cartels and see how that goes
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  The Mexican drug cartels wouldn’t exist if we’d have established a system that doesn’t give them financial incentives to. These problems are fundamentally always an issue of the underlying social systems that bring them into being. You cannot shoot them away.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    I'm not concerned about what brought the cartels to existence, the question applies to any enemy force, replace "Mexican Cartels" with "Nazis" if you wish Explain to me how you're supposed to deal with Nazis, or other invading armed force using "Arguments, beliefs, and convictions"
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Or for that matter, explain how a 60 year, without the money to relocate, old in a suburb filled with crime and essentially abandoned by the police is going to defend himself against pickpockets and robbers. "The police should ...." Yeah, but the police hasn't, for decades. During those decades the government has constantly moved to further defund the police, not the opposite. So sorry, no. And yeah, I get it, for the rich in central cities who can isolate themselves on a whim and move houses when they want to, guns are a serious nuisance. For the poor in a weak position, the fact that 1/10 of the victims are armed with guns is the one thing that defends them. And you personally don't have to participate.
humanrebar 9y ago
I think taking away the freedom of defense at the individual level is a long term problem. I don't think we can prevent all violence beforehand. And I don't think we can prosecute all violence without creating some sort of police or surveillance state. Given there will (should) be gaps in how violence is policed, we need to give upstanding citizens the ability to handle those gaps in justice in their own way. I'd rather people left the scene, handed over their wallet, recorded and published the incident, etc. But as another commenter implied by bringing up Mexico, the "let the police handle it" is a bit of a privileged attitude. That isn't a trustworthy option for every American and it hasn't been a trustworthy option throughout American history.

Or you could fight for a system that never gives him that badge in the first place. Guns solve short term problems. They don’t overturn tyranny. Arguments, beliefs, and convictions do that.

raverbashing 9y ago

> They don’t overturn tyranny. Arguments, beliefs, and convictions do that. Try that against the Mexican drug cartels and see how that goes

aalleavitch 9y ago
The Mexican drug cartels wouldn’t exist if we’d have established a system that doesn’t give them financial incentives to. These problems are fundamentally always an issue of the underlying social systems that bring them into being. You cannot shoot them away.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  I'm not concerned about what brought the cartels to existence, the question applies to any enemy force, replace "Mexican Cartels" with "Nazis" if you wish Explain to me how you're supposed to deal with Nazis, or other invading armed force using "Arguments, beliefs, and convictions"
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Or for that matter, explain how a 60 year, without the money to relocate, old in a suburb filled with crime and essentially abandoned by the police is going to defend himself against pickpockets and robbers. "The police should ...." Yeah, but the police hasn't, for decades. During those decades the government has constantly moved to further defund the police, not the opposite. So sorry, no. And yeah, I get it, for the rich in central cities who can isolate themselves on a whim and move houses when they want to, guns are a serious nuisance. For the poor in a weak position, the fact that 1/10 of the victims are armed with guns is the one thing that defends them. And you personally don't have to participate.

humanrebar 9y ago

I think taking away the freedom of defense at the individual level is a long term problem. I don't think we can prevent all violence beforehand. And I don't think we can prosecute all violence without creating some sort of police or surveillance state. Given there will (should) be gaps in how violence is policed, we need to give upstanding citizens the ability to handle those gaps in justice in their own way. I'd rather people left the scene, handed over their wallet, recorded and published the incident, etc. But as another commenter implied by bringing up Mexico, the "let the police handle it" is a bit of a privileged attitude. That isn't a trustworthy option for every American and it hasn't been a trustworthy option throughout American history.