5 ms·

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the U

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American colonists were so well armed is probably a major reason for their success during the American Revolution. The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. A lot of the gun statistics that are reported are quite misleading. For example, more than 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides. [1] I would suspect that the majority of these individuals would simply choose another means of suicide. From everything I have read our suicide rate is no worse than other similar developed nations. We also have a massive inner city gang homicide problem. No matter how many gun control laws we pass, these individuals will continue to obtain guns through illegal means. There are wide swaths of this country that are very rural and very remote. The police response times are over an hour in some parts of the country. Self defense via a firearm could actually be life saving. Additionally, as the recent Parkland shooting demonstrates, law enforcement is not guaranteed or even required to intervene to defend anyone from homicide. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mos...

mr_overalls 9y ago
> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.
- the_trapper 9y ago
  > The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump... That is probably because the Democratic party platform pushes strongly for gun control. [1] I know many people who vote Republican in elections primarily because of this single issue. > ...whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Could you elaborate on this? I don't think Trump is a great president by any means, and several of his speeches, interviews, and Twitter rants are not very Presidential to say the least. However, I can't think of any authoritarian actions he has taken that are outside of his Constitutionally granted powers. [1] - https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  >> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. > How's that working out for you? ...Trump... Trump is not a tyrant, even though he'd probably like to be one if he could. > Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately. Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate judgement or restrict rights to only those with judgement. Insurrection by its very nature is illegal, even if it's necessary and right.
- ropeadopepope 9y ago
  > The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done. This is obviously literally false (virtually all of Trump's official acts have been things that Obama did not do), and I can't see any obvious relevant non-literal sense where it is true. Even in a narrow sense of authoritarian approaches to gun rights, the Trump bump stock ban is an action that was specifically rejected by the Obama Administration, not on policy grounds, but because it exceeded the power of the executive branch without legislative change.
    - the_trapper 9y ago
      When I think of authoritarian Presidential actions, I think more of drone striking U.S. citizens without due process. [1] However, you're right the bump stock ban does feel like an overreach of the executive branch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > When I think of authoritarian Presidential actions, I think more of drone striking U.S. citizens without due process. The power of the President to wage war under a Congressional authorization, including when those fighting for the enemy include US citizens, is pretty firmly established. It's one of the reasons you really don't want Congress passing ludicrously broad authorizations and leaving them in force permanently.
    - ropeadopepope 9y ago
      > virtually all of Trump's official acts have been things that Obama did not do examples?
3chelon 9y ago
You're right in guessing I'm not American, and I do appreciate you have a fairly unique situation there with the Second Amendment and the sheer number of guns already in circulation. But, a while ago everyone outside the US thought it was only a few right-wing NRA extremists that would claim arming teachers was the solution to the school shootings problem. But now you have a president threatening to pass it into law. So the obvious next question is, where does it end? If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?
- ropeadopepope 9y ago
  > If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence? None. Guns are a tool. If more guns would end all violence, then we just need to hire more cops and flood the street with them. Recent events have shown that is clearly not the answer. But, leaving law abiding people unable to defend themselves and their family against an armed criminal class isn't the answer either.
- the_trapper 9y ago
  > If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence? Even Europe with its in my humble opinion draconian gun control has not eradicated gun violence. If gun control is the answer, why is it failing Brazil? They are actually considering making their gun laws more in line with ours. [1] They have a violence problem that is very likely a glimpse into the future of an America with European or Australian-style gun control. The guns are not committing acts of violence, the people pulling their triggers are. To solve the gun violence problem, we need to understand why people desire to commit an act of violence. [1] http://time.com/4108421/brazil-u-s-gun-culture/ http://time.com/4108421/brazil-u-s-gun-culture/
scarface74 9y ago
The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. I don't think people with guns are going to fare to well against a government with tanks, nuclear weapons, jets, etc.
- the_trapper 9y ago
  The Taliban seem to be holding their own, as did the Viet Cong before them, and if the US government is willing to nuke its own people we're beyond screwed.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    That's the definition of "tyrannical rule". I'm not saying it's realistic to think that the government would go that far, but it's equally unrealistic to think that a few people with guns running around in the forest is going to be a match against the largest military in the world. The Taliban has brainwashed people to think that they are dying to serve God and they and the VietCong had home court advantage. I don't think people who claimed to be "revolutionaries" in the US are that committed.
    - the_trapper 9y ago
      > the VietCong had home court advantage Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an American insurgency have the same thing going for it? Do you really believe that the entire military would just follow orders and obliterate their countrymen? It didn't exactly play out like that 150 years ago. Also, ignoring the whole rogue tyrannical government turning on its citizens thing for a moment, does a person not have the inalienable right to appropriate means to defend oneself? The criminals will continue to have guns no matter what laws get passed to "just do something about gun violence" and law enforcement proved that they cannot be relied upon to protect us from this villainy.

mr_overalls 9y ago

> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.

the_trapper 9y ago
> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump... That is probably because the Democratic party platform pushes strongly for gun control. [1] I know many people who vote Republican in elections primarily because of this single issue. > ...whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Could you elaborate on this? I don't think Trump is a great president by any means, and several of his speeches, interviews, and Twitter rants are not very Presidential to say the least. However, I can't think of any authoritarian actions he has taken that are outside of his Constitutionally granted powers. [1] - https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence
Chaebixi 9y ago
>> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. > How's that working out for you? ...Trump... Trump is not a tyrant, even though he'd probably like to be one if he could. > Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately. Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate judgement or restrict rights to only those with judgement. Insurrection by its very nature is illegal, even if it's necessary and right.
ropeadopepope 9y ago
> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done. This is obviously literally false (virtually all of Trump's official acts have been things that Obama did not do), and I can't see any obvious relevant non-literal sense where it is true. Even in a narrow sense of authoritarian approaches to gun rights, the Trump bump stock ban is an action that was specifically rejected by the Obama Administration, not on policy grounds, but because it exceeded the power of the executive branch without legislative change.
  - the_trapper 9y ago
    When I think of authoritarian Presidential actions, I think more of drone striking U.S. citizens without due process. [1] However, you're right the bump stock ban does feel like an overreach of the executive branch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > When I think of authoritarian Presidential actions, I think more of drone striking U.S. citizens without due process. The power of the President to wage war under a Congressional authorization, including when those fighting for the enemy include US citizens, is pretty firmly established. It's one of the reasons you really don't want Congress passing ludicrously broad authorizations and leaving them in force permanently.
  - ropeadopepope 9y ago
    > virtually all of Trump's official acts have been things that Obama did not do examples?

3chelon 9y ago

You're right in guessing I'm not American, and I do appreciate you have a fairly unique situation there with the Second Amendment and the sheer number of guns already in circulation. But, a while ago everyone outside the US thought it was only a few right-wing NRA extremists that would claim arming teachers was the solution to the school shootings problem. But now you have a president threatening to pass it into law. So the obvious next question is, where does it end? If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?

ropeadopepope 9y ago
> If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence? None. Guns are a tool. If more guns would end all violence, then we just need to hire more cops and flood the street with them. Recent events have shown that is clearly not the answer. But, leaving law abiding people unable to defend themselves and their family against an armed criminal class isn't the answer either.
the_trapper 9y ago
> If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence? Even Europe with its in my humble opinion draconian gun control has not eradicated gun violence. If gun control is the answer, why is it failing Brazil? They are actually considering making their gun laws more in line with ours. [1] They have a violence problem that is very likely a glimpse into the future of an America with European or Australian-style gun control. The guns are not committing acts of violence, the people pulling their triggers are. To solve the gun violence problem, we need to understand why people desire to commit an act of violence. [1] http://time.com/4108421/brazil-u-s-gun-culture/ http://time.com/4108421/brazil-u-s-gun-culture/

scarface74 9y ago

The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. I don't think people with guns are going to fare to well against a government with tanks, nuclear weapons, jets, etc.

the_trapper 9y ago
The Taliban seem to be holding their own, as did the Viet Cong before them, and if the US government is willing to nuke its own people we're beyond screwed.
- scarface74 9y ago
  That's the definition of "tyrannical rule". I'm not saying it's realistic to think that the government would go that far, but it's equally unrealistic to think that a few people with guns running around in the forest is going to be a match against the largest military in the world. The Taliban has brainwashed people to think that they are dying to serve God and they and the VietCong had home court advantage. I don't think people who claimed to be "revolutionaries" in the US are that committed.
  - the_trapper 9y ago
    > the VietCong had home court advantage Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an American insurgency have the same thing going for it? Do you really believe that the entire military would just follow orders and obliterate their countrymen? It didn't exactly play out like that 150 years ago. Also, ignoring the whole rogue tyrannical government turning on its citizens thing for a moment, does a person not have the inalienable right to appropriate means to defend oneself? The criminals will continue to have guns no matter what laws get passed to "just do something about gun violence" and law enforcement proved that they cannot be relied upon to protect us from this villainy.