3 ms·

I would make a similar argument about gun control: Gun control can be used to great effect by tyrants, but offers minimal benefits at best under a normal regime

I would make a similar argument about gun control: Gun control can be used to great effect by tyrants, but offers minimal benefits at best under a normal regime. For those who think gun control provides a large benefit, consider that murder has already become a minor problem in the US -- around 1/20 of what it was during colonial america. Suicide is much more common (and not easily reduced with gun control). Gun control is usually badly written (e.g. restricting rifles, which account for a tiny fraction of murders) and clumsily implemented and poorly enforced, and surely won't bring murders to zero. Compare to a situation like Venezuela, where the military is literally blocking food aid from hungry people. I wonder how long that would last with civilian gun ownership?

cannonedhamster 8y ago
Venezuela has a ban on personal gun ownership for many people, however many/most people still own guns because the murder rate is very high due to the insane poverty that's gripped the country. One of the leading candidates is talking about removing gun restrictions. The problem isn't that the populace doesn't have guns. Guns do not solve political issues. The US couldn't solve Vietnam's issues despite winning on the battlefield in most incursions. Guns don't solve any problems in nearly any case. Boots on the ground solves problems and lots of them. Basically there's no way individual people can fight against an armed military with modern weapons and transport.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  I've heard that theory before, that individuals gain no political power by owning guns, and I'm not convinced. Tyrants are never apathetic about who has weapons and who doesn't. Also, the details matter a lot. What percentage of civilians? Absolute numbers? Pistols or rifles? How are loyalty lines drawn geographically? There are also all kinds of other political games the people in power play other than direct military confrontation. Leaving you unprotected (e.g. strict gun control and long police response times) amongst criminals is one way to make your rights useless.

cannonedhamster 8y ago

Venezuela has a ban on personal gun ownership for many people, however many/most people still own guns because the murder rate is very high due to the insane poverty that's gripped the country. One of the leading candidates is talking about removing gun restrictions. The problem isn't that the populace doesn't have guns. Guns do not solve political issues. The US couldn't solve Vietnam's issues despite winning on the battlefield in most incursions. Guns don't solve any problems in nearly any case. Boots on the ground solves problems and lots of them. Basically there's no way individual people can fight against an armed military with modern weapons and transport.

jeffdavis 8y ago
I've heard that theory before, that individuals gain no political power by owning guns, and I'm not convinced. Tyrants are never apathetic about who has weapons and who doesn't. Also, the details matter a lot. What percentage of civilians? Absolute numbers? Pistols or rifles? How are loyalty lines drawn geographically? There are also all kinds of other political games the people in power play other than direct military confrontation. Leaving you unprotected (e.g. strict gun control and long police response times) amongst criminals is one way to make your rights useless.