5 ms·

Ask Venezuela or Iraq or Iran or Hong Kong or basically any of the countries in the Arab spring how it’s going for them right now.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Can we can also ask Denmark, Sweden, Germany, or other European countries that tend to be considered the US's economic and cultural peers?
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  Sure, but I'm not sure the answer would be relevant. As an analogy, just because you haven't used your first aid kit doesn't mean you won't one day need it. To the contrary, we have many examples of countries that left the first aid kit behind only to realize they desperately needed it.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    But we're not talking about first aid kits, we're talking about guns. And I think the burden of proof is on those who claim freedom of private firearm ownership works as an anti-tyranny deterrant to play around in the historical fiction realm of how Venezuela, Iraq, Hong Kong, et. al would have turned out differently with a more armed populace (remembering to factor in the possible scenario "Basically the same as it did, only with an awful lot more death when the entrenched military power ramped up the violence level to deal with a populace that could shoot back"). It's probably also relevant in that historical fiction direction to ask whether the "background" level of civilian peacetime death would have been higher or lower and by how much. Ubiquitous firearm ownership in a society is a bit of a wildcard.
    - hcurtiss 7y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, but neither would I call it "historical fiction." Armed populaces have fought back against their governments repeatedly throughout history. In any event, I'm one of the guys who would rather go down shooting than in a gas chamber. And, yes, that kind of liberty comes at a price.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        ... but it's a price generally paid by people other than the person who is armed in peacetime.
        hcurtiss 7y ago
        I disagree. Fortunately for me, I have the benefit of the Second Amendment, which shifts the burden squarely to those who would deny the right, presumably by further constitutional amendment.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Support for repeal of the 2nd Amendment is at 20%, which is far higher than I, for one, would anticipate for a fundamental Constitutional right. For comparison, 12% of Americans answered "Do you agree or disagree? Homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another?" with "Agree" in 1988.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        No, it really isn't. The majority of the gun deaths in the US belong to suicides compared to homicides.
snowwrestler 7y ago
Are you arguing that people in the U.S. should have guns so that they can shoot at U.S. police and military if they disagree with a government policy?
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  Yes, depending on the government policy, that is precisely what I'm arguing.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    It's a fantasy Americans seem to uniquely believe in that arming the populace is a good deterrent against bad government policy. If it actually worked, one would expect the US to be two separate nations now. After all, what was the Civil War if not a mass of Americans deciding extra-legally that the laws should not apply to them and taking up arms to break free of government oppression and form a government more inclined to protect their freedoms? And yet, after a bloody conflict that claimed more American lives than World War II, the country is still one nation and Americans still cling to a strange belief that private gun ownership protects against tyranny (as if a tyrant wouldn't bring their own guns to bear against the citizenry, like Sherman burning towns south of the Mason-Dixon to hamstring the morale of the rebels).
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      It's not perfect. But what it means is that if you're going to impose a policy that unpopular on half the population, you may have to go as far as the Civil War did, including accepting that many of your own people dying. That's... somewhat daunting. And a tyrant, while perfectly willing to bring their own guns to turn on citizens, would have a military that might not be willing, especially if they didn't agree with the tyrant. (The Civil War wasn't just the US army against the citizens of the south. It was the army members from the south against the army members from the north.)
      - shadowgovt 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago

Can we can also ask Denmark, Sweden, Germany, or other European countries that tend to be considered the US's economic and cultural peers?

hcurtiss 7y ago
Sure, but I'm not sure the answer would be relevant. As an analogy, just because you haven't used your first aid kit doesn't mean you won't one day need it. To the contrary, we have many examples of countries that left the first aid kit behind only to realize they desperately needed it.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  But we're not talking about first aid kits, we're talking about guns. And I think the burden of proof is on those who claim freedom of private firearm ownership works as an anti-tyranny deterrant to play around in the historical fiction realm of how Venezuela, Iraq, Hong Kong, et. al would have turned out differently with a more armed populace (remembering to factor in the possible scenario "Basically the same as it did, only with an awful lot more death when the entrenched military power ramped up the violence level to deal with a populace that could shoot back"). It's probably also relevant in that historical fiction direction to ask whether the "background" level of civilian peacetime death would have been higher or lower and by how much. Ubiquitous firearm ownership in a society is a bit of a wildcard.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but neither would I call it "historical fiction." Armed populaces have fought back against their governments repeatedly throughout history. In any event, I'm one of the guys who would rather go down shooting than in a gas chamber. And, yes, that kind of liberty comes at a price.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      ... but it's a price generally paid by people other than the person who is armed in peacetime.
      - hcurtiss 7y ago
        I disagree. Fortunately for me, I have the benefit of the Second Amendment, which shifts the burden squarely to those who would deny the right, presumably by further constitutional amendment.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Support for repeal of the 2nd Amendment is at 20%, which is far higher than I, for one, would anticipate for a fundamental Constitutional right. For comparison, 12% of Americans answered "Do you agree or disagree? Homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another?" with "Agree" in 1988.
      - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        No, it really isn't. The majority of the gun deaths in the US belong to suicides compared to homicides.

snowwrestler 7y ago

Are you arguing that people in the U.S. should have guns so that they can shoot at U.S. police and military if they disagree with a government policy?

hcurtiss 7y ago
Yes, depending on the government policy, that is precisely what I'm arguing.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  It's a fantasy Americans seem to uniquely believe in that arming the populace is a good deterrent against bad government policy. If it actually worked, one would expect the US to be two separate nations now. After all, what was the Civil War if not a mass of Americans deciding extra-legally that the laws should not apply to them and taking up arms to break free of government oppression and form a government more inclined to protect their freedoms? And yet, after a bloody conflict that claimed more American lives than World War II, the country is still one nation and Americans still cling to a strange belief that private gun ownership protects against tyranny (as if a tyrant wouldn't bring their own guns to bear against the citizenry, like Sherman burning towns south of the Mason-Dixon to hamstring the morale of the rebels).
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    It's not perfect. But what it means is that if you're going to impose a policy that unpopular on half the population, you may have to go as far as the Civil War did, including accepting that many of your own people dying. That's... somewhat daunting. And a tyrant, while perfectly willing to bring their own guns to turn on citizens, would have a military that might not be willing, especially if they didn't agree with the tyrant. (The Civil War wasn't just the US army against the citizens of the south. It was the army members from the south against the army members from the north.)
    - shadowgovt 7y ago