4 ms·

Why have a society if you cannot trust the people in it to defend themselves?

by nbdev 9y ago

themacguffinman 9y ago
Because when we organize a society, we can specialize into roles like policing and become more effective at defense as a whole?
- jakeogh 9y ago
  So ask the threat to wait a 5+ minutes while you call the cops? Should we DRM 3D printers (DMLS@home is coming) to a walled garden of things? The 2nd Amendment is not separable from general purpose computing. Who needs "assult crypto" anyway?
- deno 9y ago
  Police in United States do not have to protect you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol... Average national response time is 10 minutes, even in cities the median is 5min, but can be as high as 30min for some remote areas. In certain situations there may be no police response at all, as was the case in 1992 Los Angeles riots or practically any major natural disaster. The ‘let the police do it’ argument would only logically work with incredibly pervasive and invasive surveillance technology and/or police robots (https://goo.gl/wpMV8 https://goo.gl/wpMV8). Even so, 2nd amendment would be even more relevant to balance the killer robots.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > In certain situations there may be no police response at all... This more or less describes the Parkland shooting.
- foghagernows 9y ago
  This isn't like organizing roles at a startup company. We're talking about an individual's right to defend themselves against someone bigger and stronger, someone with a weapon who wants to take your shit or fuck you or just fuck you up. You put much faith in the Government, and I put it in the individual. What happens when your police force is turned against you, becomes incompetent, gets lazy, or just doesn't show up? It's idealistic. Life is a struggle for the individual, no matter how much we'd like to forget it or offload our worries.
  - wincy 9y ago
    Guns also equalizes the power disparity between a man and a woman. I see gun ownership as female empowerment, but the left never seems to mention that.
- makomk 9y ago
  That might be a good argument in theory, if it wasn't for the part where US police don't have to protect citizens and all the population that are outside of effective police coverage. It's not the argument gun control campaigners seem to be making right now. They mainly seem to have gone for the approach of supporting police officers standing by and doing nothing as kids are murdered one by one. Given that, I suspect you're going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already agree with you that they should give up their guns and let the police take care of everything.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pasquinelli 9y ago
why not defend yourself with something less likly to accidentally kill some random people?
- prepend 9y ago
  Why not defend yourself with a towel??
  - pasquinelli 9y ago
    a towel isn't a good defensive weapon. a firearm isn't so good either. it's a great offensive weapon though.
- flounders 9y ago
  It's a valid question. If we had something like phasers instead of firearms, I'd be more than happy to use those exclusively. The problem is we don't really have a good alternative. Tasers that shoot tend to be one shot solutions, and even then they don't always bring down targets, or they might prove as lethal. Rubber bullets you can fire multiple of, but they could cause serious damage too, especially if shot in succession, and there is no guarantee of taking the target down. There just isn't a solid alternative right now.
  - CompuHacker 9y ago
    Not to offer a complete solution: Lasers, and pervasive societal warnings about the danger of lasers.

Why have a society if you cannot trust the people in it to defend themselves?

by nbdev 9y ago

Why have a society if you cannot trust the people in it to defend themselves?

Because when we organize a society, we can specialize into roles like policing and become more effective at defense as a whole?

jakeogh 9y ago
So ask the threat to wait a 5+ minutes while you call the cops? Should we DRM 3D printers (DMLS@home is coming) to a walled garden of things? The 2nd Amendment is not separable from general purpose computing. Who needs "assult crypto" anyway?
deno 9y ago
Police in United States do not have to protect you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol... Average national response time is 10 minutes, even in cities the median is 5min, but can be as high as 30min for some remote areas. In certain situations there may be no police response at all, as was the case in 1992 Los Angeles riots or practically any major natural disaster. The ‘let the police do it’ argument would only logically work with incredibly pervasive and invasive surveillance technology and/or police robots (https://goo.gl/wpMV8 https://goo.gl/wpMV8). Even so, 2nd amendment would be even more relevant to balance the killer robots.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > In certain situations there may be no police response at all... This more or less describes the Parkland shooting.
foghagernows 9y ago
This isn't like organizing roles at a startup company. We're talking about an individual's right to defend themselves against someone bigger and stronger, someone with a weapon who wants to take your shit or fuck you or just fuck you up. You put much faith in the Government, and I put it in the individual. What happens when your police force is turned against you, becomes incompetent, gets lazy, or just doesn't show up? It's idealistic. Life is a struggle for the individual, no matter how much we'd like to forget it or offload our worries.
- wincy 9y ago
  Guns also equalizes the power disparity between a man and a woman. I see gun ownership as female empowerment, but the left never seems to mention that.
makomk 9y ago
That might be a good argument in theory, if it wasn't for the part where US police don't have to protect citizens and all the population that are outside of effective police coverage. It's not the argument gun control campaigners seem to be making right now. They mainly seem to have gone for the approach of supporting police officers standing by and doing nothing as kids are murdered one by one. Given that, I suspect you're going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already agree with you that they should give up their guns and let the police take care of everything.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pasquinelli 9y ago

why not defend yourself with something less likly to accidentally kill some random people?

prepend 9y ago
Why not defend yourself with a towel??
- pasquinelli 9y ago
  a towel isn't a good defensive weapon. a firearm isn't so good either. it's a great offensive weapon though.
flounders 9y ago
It's a valid question. If we had something like phasers instead of firearms, I'd be more than happy to use those exclusively. The problem is we don't really have a good alternative. Tasers that shoot tend to be one shot solutions, and even then they don't always bring down targets, or they might prove as lethal. Rubber bullets you can fire multiple of, but they could cause serious damage too, especially if shot in succession, and there is no guarantee of taking the target down. There just isn't a solid alternative right now.
- CompuHacker 9y ago
  Not to offer a complete solution: Lasers, and pervasive societal warnings about the danger of lasers.