6 ms·

So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved? You can apply a similar line of reasoning t

So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved? You can apply a similar line of reasoning to the banning of fast food and cars. Why should the people be held to the standard of their least common denominator?

yongjik 7y ago
Personally I see it the opposite way: America's infatuation with guns reflects a world where your fellow citizens are wild animals to be fended off with lethal threat, and your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force. This is a world built upon the lowest common denominator of civilization.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force. Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny. Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny. Tyranny generally doesn't come overnight. There are plenty of things you can ask soldiers to do that they'll feel uncomfortable about but still do it, and then in eighteen months when it's time to reenlist they decline. A decade later you've got only zealots. > Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years. Because we sure handed it to those Iraqis, and the Vietnamese before that. Counter-insurgency is hard. Having planes and nukes doesn't help you when the bridges and cities are friendly assets. Morale is low when you're fighting your own people. You can't guard every military resource with hundreds of soldiers, but that means the one guarded by twenty can be overrun by a hundred civilians if they're armed. And it only takes one bullet to kill Hitler.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel an american insurgency will be effective and persistent. Where is the confederacy?
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. I think if you did a poll today you'd find that the pro-slavery contingent is well below the threshold.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        > You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. If I recall correctly they both lost and lost their rights - whether we consider those rights the right to own slaves or leave the union. > But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. Not true. "The accidental guerilla" by David Kilcullen is a great book on this idea. I'm wondering though for what reason you feel the confederates felt less strongly than gun owners do today.
  - pnako 7y ago
    You mean losing to insurgencies for years?
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      Are you talking about the wars where for example maybe conservatively 100000 Iraqis have died while about 5000 coalition troops have? Is that how you see winning going down for american gun owners, too?
      - pnako 7y ago
        Winning is not about body counts; it's about reaching your strategic objectives.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        What strategic objective do you see american gun owners achieving against the american military?
        pnako 7y ago
        Preserving their rights.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Our track record of defeating armed insurgencies is miserable. You’re also overlooking the nature of waging war on your own people. The military will follow a tyrannical dictator, until it doesn’t. In Bangladesh, for example, Pakistan killed hundreds of thousands of disarmed Bangladeshis. Thanks to smuggled arms from India, Bangladesh was able to put up some sort of resistance. Eventually, Bangladeshi members of the Pakistani military defected. Bangladesh could never have defeated the military with individual arms alone, but had they not been able to start a war they may have been brought into submission before pushing the military past the breaking point.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      I'm not only hearing you say "maybe" a lot about the effectiveness of gun ownership, but also that wars against internal foes are wildly unpopular, and that the military may decide to stop supporting the government. Agreed on all counts. Consider this though, we have repeatedly conducted studies that show bringing a gun into your house increases the chance of gun death. Maybe, perhaps, given the chance, gun ownership will help stave off tyranny.
      - briffle 7y ago
        Oh boy, wait until you see the stats about what car ownership does to you and your families chances of dying in an automobile accident!
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        Can't wait to argue with all the car owners that say owning a car will help protect them against crime and car accidents, as well.
- ryeights 7y ago
  That's a fair take. However, history shows us that, for every nation, the probability of those two statements becoming true approaches 1 as time progresses. The fact remains that there exist criminals in society who would harm my family and I for personal gain or pleasure if they had the chance, and I would like to have the means to defend myself from them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tomlockwood 7y ago
> So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved? Guns don't help with that goal. Having a gun makes you more likely to die of gunshot wounds, either self-inflicted or by others.
- ryeights 7y ago
  That depends entirely on you and your family's level of responsibility around firearms. Unless you act like an idiot with regards to guns, you are unlikely to be accidentally injured by them. That is what I mean by 'least common denominator': people shouldn't be denied firearms because certain people can't be responsible with them.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    Awesome. Sounds like you're in favour of reasonable gun control via strict license requirements and tests. You know - to make sure irresponsible idiots don't get them. We agree.
    - ryeights 7y ago
      Sort of. I don't believe its the government's job (nor position) to protect idiots from themselves, so I would not support such regulations.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        I dunno, maybe this is a super controversial opinion but I think it may be harmful to categorize a bunch of people who commit suicide as idiots. Particularly given that those people in America are more and more often veterans and men. I also think that by some tragic circumstance or another a lot of those mentally ill people have no friends or family to support them. I'm happy to pay the government to care for those "idiots", to be frank. What do you think?
        7y ago

yongjik 7y ago

Personally I see it the opposite way: America's infatuation with guns reflects a world where your fellow citizens are wild animals to be fended off with lethal threat, and your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force. This is a world built upon the lowest common denominator of civilization.

tomlockwood 7y ago
> your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force. Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny. Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny. Tyranny generally doesn't come overnight. There are plenty of things you can ask soldiers to do that they'll feel uncomfortable about but still do it, and then in eighteen months when it's time to reenlist they decline. A decade later you've got only zealots. > Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years. Because we sure handed it to those Iraqis, and the Vietnamese before that. Counter-insurgency is hard. Having planes and nukes doesn't help you when the bridges and cities are friendly assets. Morale is low when you're fighting your own people. You can't guard every military resource with hundreds of soldiers, but that means the one guarded by twenty can be overrun by a hundred civilians if they're armed. And it only takes one bullet to kill Hitler.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel an american insurgency will be effective and persistent. Where is the confederacy?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. I think if you did a poll today you'd find that the pro-slavery contingent is well below the threshold.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        > You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. If I recall correctly they both lost and lost their rights - whether we consider those rights the right to own slaves or leave the union. > But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. Not true. "The accidental guerilla" by David Kilcullen is a great book on this idea. I'm wondering though for what reason you feel the confederates felt less strongly than gun owners do today.
- pnako 7y ago
  You mean losing to insurgencies for years?
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    Are you talking about the wars where for example maybe conservatively 100000 Iraqis have died while about 5000 coalition troops have? Is that how you see winning going down for american gun owners, too?
    - pnako 7y ago
      Winning is not about body counts; it's about reaching your strategic objectives.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        What strategic objective do you see american gun owners achieving against the american military?
        pnako 7y ago
        Preserving their rights.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Our track record of defeating armed insurgencies is miserable. You’re also overlooking the nature of waging war on your own people. The military will follow a tyrannical dictator, until it doesn’t. In Bangladesh, for example, Pakistan killed hundreds of thousands of disarmed Bangladeshis. Thanks to smuggled arms from India, Bangladesh was able to put up some sort of resistance. Eventually, Bangladeshi members of the Pakistani military defected. Bangladesh could never have defeated the military with individual arms alone, but had they not been able to start a war they may have been brought into submission before pushing the military past the breaking point.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    I'm not only hearing you say "maybe" a lot about the effectiveness of gun ownership, but also that wars against internal foes are wildly unpopular, and that the military may decide to stop supporting the government. Agreed on all counts. Consider this though, we have repeatedly conducted studies that show bringing a gun into your house increases the chance of gun death. Maybe, perhaps, given the chance, gun ownership will help stave off tyranny.
    - briffle 7y ago
      Oh boy, wait until you see the stats about what car ownership does to you and your families chances of dying in an automobile accident!
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        Can't wait to argue with all the car owners that say owning a car will help protect them against crime and car accidents, as well.
ryeights 7y ago
That's a fair take. However, history shows us that, for every nation, the probability of those two statements becoming true approaches 1 as time progresses. The fact remains that there exist criminals in society who would harm my family and I for personal gain or pleasure if they had the chance, and I would like to have the means to defend myself from them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tomlockwood 7y ago

> So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved? Guns don't help with that goal. Having a gun makes you more likely to die of gunshot wounds, either self-inflicted or by others.

ryeights 7y ago
That depends entirely on you and your family's level of responsibility around firearms. Unless you act like an idiot with regards to guns, you are unlikely to be accidentally injured by them. That is what I mean by 'least common denominator': people shouldn't be denied firearms because certain people can't be responsible with them.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Awesome. Sounds like you're in favour of reasonable gun control via strict license requirements and tests. You know - to make sure irresponsible idiots don't get them. We agree.
  - ryeights 7y ago
    Sort of. I don't believe its the government's job (nor position) to protect idiots from themselves, so I would not support such regulations.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      I dunno, maybe this is a super controversial opinion but I think it may be harmful to categorize a bunch of people who commit suicide as idiots. Particularly given that those people in America are more and more often veterans and men. I also think that by some tragic circumstance or another a lot of those mentally ill people have no friends or family to support them. I'm happy to pay the government to care for those "idiots", to be frank. What do you think?
      - 7y ago