3 ms·

Yeah, probably best to just surrender your weapons and pray for mercy.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Instead of praying for mercy, Americans can vote for good leadership, be active in their local, state, and federal government, hold each other accountable, and take responsibility for living in a representative democracy. It is, ultimately, these things that make for a free and stable society, not the proliferation of firearms. When you elect a tyrant, all the private firearms do is ramp up the bloodshed the tyrant will bring.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  If only democracies could be trusted to not elect tyrants. Unfortunately, there are many, many examples to the contrary. That fact was one of the primary motivators for the Bill of Rights. You are right that there would be bloodshed when facing a tyrant (certainly more than if there were no way to fight back). In my mind, better that than the gas chambers. Let’s not forget that Hitler came into power by popular vote.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I've heard argumentum-ad-Hitler used as an example of why private citizens should be armed. What I've never heard is a strong argument that a German citizenry armed as the US is armed now wouldn't have simply resulted in faster, gas-chamber-free deaths of minorities in Germany and German-occupied territories, as the government in charge gave quiet assent to extra-legal killings enacted by private citizens against "undesirables" and the citizenry bought into the mythology of the ubermensch. After all, the hypothesis of the equalizing effect of private firepower assumes that "good guys" have the guns.
    - hcurtiss 7y ago
      I think that both having guns makes it marginally less likely that either shoots. That applies at both the micro and macro scale.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Then given the proliferation of firearms in the US, the firearm-related homicide and injury rates should be lower than in countries that ban firearms (not absolute instances; lower rates, if more guns makes it marginally less likely that any party shoots). They are not.
        hcurtiss 7y ago
        In most (nearly all?) circumstances, one party is not armed.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Then at what ratio of armed citizens do the benefits you anticipate kick in? 60%? 80%? Should we all expect to show up to church strapped with a 9mm, just in case? Can you provide an example of a country where such a high ratio of armed citizenry has worked out well? There should be a positive example we can turn to. The US isn't it by the numbers.
        hcurtiss 7y ago
        I never claimed gun ownership reduced gun violence overall, but excluding suicide it doesn’t seem to increase it either.[1] At the macro scale, I only mean to say it makes hostile government action less likely. Likewise, at the micro scale, I only mean to say violent confrontation between individuals is less likely when both parties are armed than when only one is armed. This much to me seems self evident (and underpins the macro thesis as well). At the micro scale, I might agree that there would be less gun violence if neither party were armed, but mass confiscation will never happen in the US. It would be ineffective given the lack of a central registry and it would likely incite civil war. In that light, even barring the macro thesis, it strikes me as prudent to be among the armed. With, of course, basic safety training. [1]https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...

Instead of praying for mercy, Americans can vote for good leadership, be active in their local, state, and federal government, hold each other accountable, and take responsibility for living in a representative democracy. It is, ultimately, these things that make for a free and stable society, not the proliferation of firearms. When you elect a tyrant, all the private firearms do is ramp up the bloodshed the tyrant will bring.

hcurtiss 7y ago
If only democracies could be trusted to not elect tyrants. Unfortunately, there are many, many examples to the contrary. That fact was one of the primary motivators for the Bill of Rights. You are right that there would be bloodshed when facing a tyrant (certainly more than if there were no way to fight back). In my mind, better that than the gas chambers. Let’s not forget that Hitler came into power by popular vote.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I've heard argumentum-ad-Hitler used as an example of why private citizens should be armed. What I've never heard is a strong argument that a German citizenry armed as the US is armed now wouldn't have simply resulted in faster, gas-chamber-free deaths of minorities in Germany and German-occupied territories, as the government in charge gave quiet assent to extra-legal killings enacted by private citizens against "undesirables" and the citizenry bought into the mythology of the ubermensch. After all, the hypothesis of the equalizing effect of private firepower assumes that "good guys" have the guns.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    I think that both having guns makes it marginally less likely that either shoots. That applies at both the micro and macro scale.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Then given the proliferation of firearms in the US, the firearm-related homicide and injury rates should be lower than in countries that ban firearms (not absolute instances; lower rates, if more guns makes it marginally less likely that any party shoots). They are not.
      - hcurtiss 7y ago
        In most (nearly all?) circumstances, one party is not armed.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Then at what ratio of armed citizens do the benefits you anticipate kick in? 60%? 80%? Should we all expect to show up to church strapped with a 9mm, just in case? Can you provide an example of a country where such a high ratio of armed citizenry has worked out well? There should be a positive example we can turn to. The US isn't it by the numbers.
        hcurtiss 7y ago
        I never claimed gun ownership reduced gun violence overall, but excluding suicide it doesn’t seem to increase it either.[1] At the macro scale, I only mean to say it makes hostile government action less likely. Likewise, at the micro scale, I only mean to say violent confrontation between individuals is less likely when both parties are armed than when only one is armed. This much to me seems self evident (and underpins the macro thesis as well). At the micro scale, I might agree that there would be less gun violence if neither party were armed, but mass confiscation will never happen in the US. It would be ineffective given the lack of a central registry and it would likely incite civil war. In that light, even barring the macro thesis, it strikes me as prudent to be among the armed. With, of course, basic safety training. [1]https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...