3 ms·

In the US at least, there are probably enough people with a significant number of firearms that it would take a war to make this work. I’m not usually fond of a

In the US at least, there are probably enough people with a significant number of firearms that it would take a war to make this work. I’m not usually fond of anti-government fanatics, but I have to admit that in extremes they can be useful.

majormajor 9y ago
A less militarized society could reach the same point. "Sending in the special cops with guns" === "sending in the tanks and bombers." In both cases the government withholds superior strength for itself, regardless of the baseline. The question of "are people willing to risk their life" and "is the government willing to kill in large numbers" seem unchanged.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Sure, but that assumes a government willing to literally go to war with its populace, and why I explicitly said a war would be required. I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. The difference between a country drowning in guns and one without them is that in the latter case it’s just that much easier, a “lower barrier to entry” if you will.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    > I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. Plenty of US adversaries have met these odds and held their own. Aside from some targeted campaigns to eradicate individuals, we haven't truly "won" any notable military conflict since 1945. IEDs tend to level the playing field, but see how far you get trying to build or acquire those today. You'd be among the first wave of dissidents swept up in the ML-aided dragnet looking for purchasers of batteries and fertilizer.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      All good points, and I think it reinforces the incredible cost associated with attempting to institute something as tyrannical as “pre-crime” detention in the US. It could be done, but only over a mountain of corpses and human misery. A government willing to do that, and sacrifice economic and social stability for generations is happily not one which resembles our government. That could change, but it would be a massive change, not some inevitable slog. In China they’ve already crushed anything like resistance, disarmed their populace, and gone the full “re-education camp” route for a while.
jstarfish 9y ago
This is not a situation that can (or should) be resolved through violent rebellion. A violent response would only serve to justify the application of the system, to cut the head off of any leadership structure before it materializes (or just pick off the lone wackos before they cause problems).
- IntronExon 9y ago
  If it came to violence then disaster would already have struck, but there is a deterrent effect when a statistically significant portion of your population would fight to prevent it. The cost moves from, “pass some laws, enforce as usual,” to “commit to atrocity, and massive civilian losses.”
liberte82 9y ago
The people with the guns will be the ones supporting this. The US Govt won't be going after those types (to start) - this will first be used to justify going after terrorists, pedophiles, and the like.

majormajor 9y ago

A less militarized society could reach the same point. "Sending in the special cops with guns" === "sending in the tanks and bombers." In both cases the government withholds superior strength for itself, regardless of the baseline. The question of "are people willing to risk their life" and "is the government willing to kill in large numbers" seem unchanged.

IntronExon 9y ago
Sure, but that assumes a government willing to literally go to war with its populace, and why I explicitly said a war would be required. I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. The difference between a country drowning in guns and one without them is that in the latter case it’s just that much easier, a “lower barrier to entry” if you will.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  > I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. Plenty of US adversaries have met these odds and held their own. Aside from some targeted campaigns to eradicate individuals, we haven't truly "won" any notable military conflict since 1945. IEDs tend to level the playing field, but see how far you get trying to build or acquire those today. You'd be among the first wave of dissidents swept up in the ML-aided dragnet looking for purchasers of batteries and fertilizer.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    All good points, and I think it reinforces the incredible cost associated with attempting to institute something as tyrannical as “pre-crime” detention in the US. It could be done, but only over a mountain of corpses and human misery. A government willing to do that, and sacrifice economic and social stability for generations is happily not one which resembles our government. That could change, but it would be a massive change, not some inevitable slog. In China they’ve already crushed anything like resistance, disarmed their populace, and gone the full “re-education camp” route for a while.

jstarfish 9y ago

This is not a situation that can (or should) be resolved through violent rebellion. A violent response would only serve to justify the application of the system, to cut the head off of any leadership structure before it materializes (or just pick off the lone wackos before they cause problems).

IntronExon 9y ago
If it came to violence then disaster would already have struck, but there is a deterrent effect when a statistically significant portion of your population would fight to prevent it. The cost moves from, “pass some laws, enforce as usual,” to “commit to atrocity, and massive civilian losses.”

liberte82 9y ago

The people with the guns will be the ones supporting this. The US Govt won't be going after those types (to start) - this will first be used to justify going after terrorists, pedophiles, and the like.