7 ms·

Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes

by noxer 5y ago

Don't forget they disarmed the people. If some people ever start to care they wont have the boomstick power. They maybe be upside down but authoritarian regimes work the same, secure the monopoly on force by removing arms is a key step for any authoritarian gov.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'
- Cyril_HN 5y ago
  That's not the point. The point is that it means a government must resort to violence and it may be unwilling to do so. Whereas if people don't have guns, then the government can be incredibly overpowering without having to step over the threshold of violence, which makes it more likely.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    Governments have no problem "stepping over the threshold" and using violence. If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower. When push comes to shove, guns allow normal people to escalate violence to the point the government stops MUCH quicker and faster than without guns.
      - brokenmachine 5y ago
        >Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower. I don't really understand what you mean here? You pull your gun out and threaten a government representative, and you will be dead or in handcuffs within 30 minutes. Maybe your idea of civilian government overthrow could come true if you could somehow gather thousands of people with guns who are against the government simultaneously, but other than that, it's over. And even if you do manage to gather those people, it's over when the national guard arrives. Escalating violence doesn't work when you're massively outgunned, or do you have your own Apache helicopters, armed drones and tanks? Do you think they will hesitate to attack armed terrorists trying to overthrow the "democratically elected" government? I'm not American so please explain what I'm missing here.
        anonfornoreason 5y ago
        Think less on quick-draw-shoot-the-cop sort of scenarios, and more along the lines of a "the freedom fighters generally live in these hills, and they like to blow us up with bombs or shoot us from far away when we aren't suspecting" situation. If there was a tyranny and a rebellion, the cops are going to think twice about going out and about without full force since they might be ambushed. Alot of this sort of situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838
        candiodari 5y ago
        That's one thing. But there's another. I've done years of fighting sports training with half the local (sort-of, they get called out pretty far, sometimes even flown somewhere) SWAT team. Including the commander. If you think even such a team will go charging into what might be an ambush, you're insane. It does not work like in the movies. If you're in your house and someone is trying to kill you with a weapon, it will take the cops 15 minutes to your door ... and 30 minutes before they come in, minimum. If a unit has been lost (meaning a cop already got hurt), it will take hour before they come to the door, minimum. Some places (such as the court house) have different rules. As soon as a unit has been lost, they will FIRST do a cost-benefit analysis of retaliating at all. And, especially in large cities, that analysis will regularly come up with something akin to "just let them deliver the drugs and do ... nothing" or "just let them go". Even when non-lethal (and "non-lethal" as in a knife) weapons are used they may refuse. You see, not getting maimed (even a little bit) is a thoroughly essential part of having any sort of career, and the treatment wounded cops get certainly does not justify self-sacrifice. The kinder logic is that criminals don't stop after one crime. If it's needed to stop them, there will be another chance. Working this way means that for even a large metro area they can maybe handle 5 to 10 serious situations at any one time. Police weapons, even the big ones, do not defeat even relatively small determined militias. And the police will abandon neighbourhoods long before it comes anywhere near this point. If they truly the think the situation will escalate without end, they may go in. That, by the way, generally means snipers, not knocking down the door. If they don't think the situation will escalate, or if there's too many people, or ... they will just let it be.
    - weimerica 5y ago
      > If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken. The government order is acted on by a person, at the end of the day. During the lockdowns my City authority closed all public parks including the one across the street from my house. They also retasked all Parks & Recreation employees to sit in the parks and yell at anyone using the parks. Many citizens, myself included, outright ignored the P&R staff and continued to make use of the park under the threat of "calling the police." Even after the lockdown ended and parks re-opened, the staff at our local park continued with their own "closure." However, at no point did officers respond let alone use state-sanctioned violence against citizens. That a government flunky gives an order does not mean it will be enforced let alone result in violence from authorities. Ultimately, this is a continuous function rather than a boolean as you're implying. Citizen ownership of arms helps juice that function in our favor.
    - noxer 5y ago
      There is no such things as "the government who enforces laws" its people who enforce laws and they wont if they dont agree and dont have a monopoly on violence. Also "hastily-written or unfair laws" wont be enacted if there is a realistic chance you pay with your life for doing so. The guns are there for when the legal way to solve stuff no longer works and laws are no longer of any meaning. Saying its against the law to use them or that law enforcement will enforce any law no matter what is pure ignorance. Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        > Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover. And depending on the relations the US has with 2-3 particular nations we would likely see an invasion thrown on top.
- weimerica 5y ago
  > Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". It is, until it isn't. > Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? See: Middle East
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    > See: Middle East That's always tricky because the most successful examples of a guerilla army winning like that are all a foreign army coming into a local rebelling population. They mostly work by just wearing down the invaders until the cost and time requirements wear heavy enough that the foreign army decides to just go home, that same dynamic doesn't map as well when it's the state fighting for it's own survival to me.
    - nemo44x 5y ago
      It's actually probably easier since the government would be asking its own people to kill its own people. If the local government were in broadly thought to be tyrannical, a guerilla civil war would have a high chance of success. Ask Cuba.
      - rtkwe 5y ago
        It's impossible to say with certainty which way it will go. There's factors pushing in both directions. You're right there will be some defection from the military to any US insurgent side but there's also a lot of space to draw divisions in the US and given enough people you can assign soldiers to fight places they're not particularly aligned to support. My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). There are completely different incentives there, on the extreme end of things losing means you might be killed Also don't be so sure about Cuba if you're talking about the current situation, it's far from over and they're not exactly a peer comparison to make to a theoretical US insurgency.
- nanis 5y ago
  > anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? I am not taking sides in the underlying argument. I am simply astonished that you can make this statement in the face of U.S. forces running away from Afghanistan.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    You mean where the US is no longer interested in nation building and occupying another country years after the military victory?
    - nanis 5y ago
      Right. There might be three people in the world that believe that the stated goal of the mission was to kill a bunch of people and return power to the group whose members we killed while in the process arming them to the teeth with U.S. equipment so they have free reign once again[1]. [1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/3448281/taliban-grabbing-girls-sex-slaves/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/3448281/taliban-grabbing-girls-...
- stackedinserter 5y ago
  > Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? I do think that in case of armed resistance, US government will step back instead of nuking Oklahoma City. Also, search "chechen wars". Large well-equipped Russian army with tanks, artillery and air force lost to people armed with AK's, determination and grassroots support from locals. For more recent example see what happened in Afghanistan. The best the most powerful army on the planet could do is sitting inside their bases with multiple security perimeters.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    You keep imagining that all the population will be on your side in this exchange. It'll just be so obvious you should be fighting the government, everyone will join!
  - handrous 5y ago
    I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. I'm extremely skeptical that they're better to have around, than not to have around, from a preserving-liberty perspective, in a developed state, especially. I'd welcome any evidence that they're of much use for that. I see too many mixed outcomes (private arms aiding in the installation of tyrannical government, notably, of which I'm aware of way more examples than the reverse) and cases that are too different to compare—every single example I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. I think the odds of an armed US militia resisting tyranny being popular enough not to end up being opposed by even more armed militia who are pro tyranny, in a situation in which the military is not also mostly on the anti-tyranny side, is effectively zero. I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny). I'd welcome evidence that would change this view, but as far as I can tell the scales strongly lean toward my take.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. … > I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Effectively all you are doing is dismissing the evidence without reasoning.
- neartheplain 5y ago
  >Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Ask the Taliban.
- inkblotuniverse 5y ago
  Yes, when that militia is in every town. In the end, you need boots on the ground. A government is a parasitic organism. Quashing resistance only makes sense if it's cost-effective. E.g. nuking your own country is insane; at some point, it's just cheaper to compromise.
- strken 5y ago
  The US civilian militias that currently exist in a time of domestic peace are filled with angry people from the margins of society. The ones that would form from the veterans of decades of foreign wars in a time of domestic conflict might be a lot different. Remember that bin Laden fought off the Soviets using an MBA, an inherited construction company, and billions of dollars of foreign funding. Militias don't exist in isolation from the world.
monkeycantype 5y ago
You’re missing an essential detail, how Australians view the government, Australians don’t believe that the the government is sufficiently competent to be tyrannical, except in small local cases against the powerless edit: we don't believe those in government with the inclination towards tyranny are sufficiently competent. There are individuals, in government in Australia, in the same house even if they're are not quite at the centre of power, who are good admirable competent people. And there are those whose fantasies bend towards tyranny. They are not the same people. And then there is the great morass along for the ride and the cushy pension.
- partomniscient 5y ago
  Democracy as implemented is stupid. I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me. The system has failed. I was horrified to see how far we'd fallen. When COVID hit, I thought they'd at least have some basic model on the shelf to extrapolate a response from. Nope. All that kind of forward thinking seems to have gone along with the brain drain of the CSIRO and everything that followed. All the smart people have already left. We're now governed by passive-reactive puppets. At least you can understand tyranny. Possibly intentional incompetence not so much. Welcome to the misinformation age. Who knew it would start so soon after the information age.
  - eightails 5y ago
    > Democracy as implemented is stupid. > I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me. Representative democracy is designed as a compromise between giving power to the people and giving (what's perceived as) too much power to the people. In the case of a true direct democracy, many fear the ignorance and apathy of the average voter, and wonder if the majority rule would lead to tribalism and repression of minorities. That said, the few actual examples of direct democracy don't really seem to have borne these fears out. In a way it comes down to how much (or little) confidence you have in your fellow citizen; "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," and all that. I veer towards misanthropy, so from that perspective direct democracy doesn't do a lot for me... seems like there's no perfect system.
plugger 5y ago
> Don't forget they disarmed the people. SIGH. This isn't true and I wish Americans would stop saying it. You can own guns down here, even keep them in your house. Sure, you're limited to bolt actions/side by sides, etc; but there is a healthy shooting community down here. For instance, I've got a mate who owns 7 rifles, the largest of which is a .338 Lapua. What Australia did was break the 'gun culture' down here and ban semi-autos, pump actions, etc. And let's be honest, I'd take that over the 18 million ARs in circulation in the USA every day of the week. Not having semi-autos is preferable to daily shootings in the community.

by noxer 5y ago

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'

Cyril_HN 5y ago
That's not the point. The point is that it means a government must resort to violence and it may be unwilling to do so. Whereas if people don't have guns, then the government can be incredibly overpowering without having to step over the threshold of violence, which makes it more likely.
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  Governments have no problem "stepping over the threshold" and using violence. If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower. When push comes to shove, guns allow normal people to escalate violence to the point the government stops MUCH quicker and faster than without guns.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      >Yes, but there is a very low limit to the number of people that can be on the other end of the violence, and with guns, that limit is even much lower. I don't really understand what you mean here? You pull your gun out and threaten a government representative, and you will be dead or in handcuffs within 30 minutes. Maybe your idea of civilian government overthrow could come true if you could somehow gather thousands of people with guns who are against the government simultaneously, but other than that, it's over. And even if you do manage to gather those people, it's over when the national guard arrives. Escalating violence doesn't work when you're massively outgunned, or do you have your own Apache helicopters, armed drones and tanks? Do you think they will hesitate to attack armed terrorists trying to overthrow the "democratically elected" government? I'm not American so please explain what I'm missing here.
      - anonfornoreason 5y ago
        Think less on quick-draw-shoot-the-cop sort of scenarios, and more along the lines of a "the freedom fighters generally live in these hills, and they like to blow us up with bombs or shoot us from far away when we aren't suspecting" situation. If there was a tyranny and a rebellion, the cops are going to think twice about going out and about without full force since they might be ambushed. Alot of this sort of situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838
        candiodari 5y ago
        That's one thing. But there's another. I've done years of fighting sports training with half the local (sort-of, they get called out pretty far, sometimes even flown somewhere) SWAT team. Including the commander. If you think even such a team will go charging into what might be an ambush, you're insane. It does not work like in the movies. If you're in your house and someone is trying to kill you with a weapon, it will take the cops 15 minutes to your door ... and 30 minutes before they come in, minimum. If a unit has been lost (meaning a cop already got hurt), it will take hour before they come to the door, minimum. Some places (such as the court house) have different rules. As soon as a unit has been lost, they will FIRST do a cost-benefit analysis of retaliating at all. And, especially in large cities, that analysis will regularly come up with something akin to "just let them deliver the drugs and do ... nothing" or "just let them go". Even when non-lethal (and "non-lethal" as in a knife) weapons are used they may refuse. You see, not getting maimed (even a little bit) is a thoroughly essential part of having any sort of career, and the treatment wounded cops get certainly does not justify self-sacrifice. The kinder logic is that criminals don't stop after one crime. If it's needed to stop them, there will be another chance. Working this way means that for even a large metro area they can maybe handle 5 to 10 serious situations at any one time. Police weapons, even the big ones, do not defeat even relatively small determined militias. And the police will abandon neighbourhoods long before it comes anywhere near this point. If they truly the think the situation will escalate without end, they may go in. That, by the way, generally means snipers, not knocking down the door. If they don't think the situation will escalate, or if there's too many people, or ... they will just let it be.
  - weimerica 5y ago
    > If you think that the US government wouldn't use violence against its own people for breaking laws, even hastily-written or unfair laws, you're sorely mistaken. The government order is acted on by a person, at the end of the day. During the lockdowns my City authority closed all public parks including the one across the street from my house. They also retasked all Parks & Recreation employees to sit in the parks and yell at anyone using the parks. Many citizens, myself included, outright ignored the P&R staff and continued to make use of the park under the threat of "calling the police." Even after the lockdown ended and parks re-opened, the staff at our local park continued with their own "closure." However, at no point did officers respond let alone use state-sanctioned violence against citizens. That a government flunky gives an order does not mean it will be enforced let alone result in violence from authorities. Ultimately, this is a continuous function rather than a boolean as you're implying. Citizen ownership of arms helps juice that function in our favor.
  - noxer 5y ago
    There is no such things as "the government who enforces laws" its people who enforce laws and they wont if they dont agree and dont have a monopoly on violence. Also "hastily-written or unfair laws" wont be enacted if there is a realistic chance you pay with your life for doing so. The guns are there for when the legal way to solve stuff no longer works and laws are no longer of any meaning. Saying its against the law to use them or that law enforcement will enforce any law no matter what is pure ignorance. Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      > Civil wars happens and if there is one you better hope both sides have guns because else its not a war its a takeover. And depending on the relations the US has with 2-3 particular nations we would likely see an invasion thrown on top.
weimerica 5y ago
> Guns in the hands of the Australians who want guns in their hands is an outcome that's about a thousand times worse than a "disarmed people". It is, until it isn't. > Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? See: Middle East
- rtkwe 5y ago
  > See: Middle East That's always tricky because the most successful examples of a guerilla army winning like that are all a foreign army coming into a local rebelling population. They mostly work by just wearing down the invaders until the cost and time requirements wear heavy enough that the foreign army decides to just go home, that same dynamic doesn't map as well when it's the state fighting for it's own survival to me.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    It's actually probably easier since the government would be asking its own people to kill its own people. If the local government were in broadly thought to be tyrannical, a guerilla civil war would have a high chance of success. Ask Cuba.
    - rtkwe 5y ago
      It's impossible to say with certainty which way it will go. There's factors pushing in both directions. You're right there will be some defection from the military to any US insurgent side but there's also a lot of space to draw divisions in the US and given enough people you can assign soldiers to fight places they're not particularly aligned to support. My biggest point is that all the often cited success stories of a guerilla army winning against any modern military are all on a home turf vs invading army (and the guerilla forces are often heavily backed by outside forces or backed up by an actual regular army like in Vietnam). There are completely different incentives there, on the extreme end of things losing means you might be killed Also don't be so sure about Cuba if you're talking about the current situation, it's far from over and they're not exactly a peer comparison to make to a theoretical US insurgency.
nanis 5y ago
> anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? I am not taking sides in the underlying argument. I am simply astonished that you can make this statement in the face of U.S. forces running away from Afghanistan.
- goatlover 5y ago
  You mean where the US is no longer interested in nation building and occupying another country years after the military victory?
  - nanis 5y ago
    Right. There might be three people in the world that believe that the stated goal of the mission was to kill a bunch of people and return power to the group whose members we killed while in the process arming them to the teeth with U.S. equipment so they have free reign once again[1]. [1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/3448281/taliban-grabbing-girls-sex-slaves/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/3448281/taliban-grabbing-girls-...
stackedinserter 5y ago
> Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? I do think that in case of armed resistance, US government will step back instead of nuking Oklahoma City. Also, search "chechen wars". Large well-equipped Russian army with tanks, artillery and air force lost to people armed with AK's, determination and grassroots support from locals. For more recent example see what happened in Afghanistan. The best the most powerful army on the planet could do is sitting inside their bases with multiple security perimeters.
- XorNot 5y ago
  You keep imagining that all the population will be on your side in this exchange. It'll just be so obvious you should be fighting the government, everyone will join!
- handrous 5y ago
  I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. I'm extremely skeptical that they're better to have around, than not to have around, from a preserving-liberty perspective, in a developed state, especially. I'd welcome any evidence that they're of much use for that. I see too many mixed outcomes (private arms aiding in the installation of tyrannical government, notably, of which I'm aware of way more examples than the reverse) and cases that are too different to compare—every single example I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. I think the odds of an armed US militia resisting tyranny being popular enough not to end up being opposed by even more armed militia who are pro tyranny, in a situation in which the military is not also mostly on the anti-tyranny side, is effectively zero. I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny). I'd welcome evidence that would change this view, but as far as I can tell the scales strongly lean toward my take.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > I am skeptical of the utility of private arms in resisting a home-grown tyrannical government. … > I'm aware of involves extensive foreign intervention and/or resistance to a foreign occupier, which is very different. You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Effectively all you are doing is dismissing the evidence without reasoning.
neartheplain 5y ago
>Also, anyone think that a US civilian militia has more than a snowball's chance in hell against any committed government-deployed force? Ask the Taliban.
inkblotuniverse 5y ago
Yes, when that militia is in every town. In the end, you need boots on the ground. A government is a parasitic organism. Quashing resistance only makes sense if it's cost-effective. E.g. nuking your own country is insane; at some point, it's just cheaper to compromise.
strken 5y ago
The US civilian militias that currently exist in a time of domestic peace are filled with angry people from the margins of society. The ones that would form from the veterans of decades of foreign wars in a time of domestic conflict might be a lot different. Remember that bin Laden fought off the Soviets using an MBA, an inherited construction company, and billions of dollars of foreign funding. Militias don't exist in isolation from the world.

monkeycantype 5y ago

You’re missing an essential detail, how Australians view the government, Australians don’t believe that the the government is sufficiently competent to be tyrannical, except in small local cases against the powerless edit: we don't believe those in government with the inclination towards tyranny are sufficiently competent. There are individuals, in government in Australia, in the same house even if they're are not quite at the centre of power, who are good admirable competent people. And there are those whose fantasies bend towards tyranny. They are not the same people. And then there is the great morass along for the ride and the cushy pension.

partomniscient 5y ago
Democracy as implemented is stupid. I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me. The system has failed. I was horrified to see how far we'd fallen. When COVID hit, I thought they'd at least have some basic model on the shelf to extrapolate a response from. Nope. All that kind of forward thinking seems to have gone along with the brain drain of the CSIRO and everything that followed. All the smart people have already left. We're now governed by passive-reactive puppets. At least you can understand tyranny. Possibly intentional incompetence not so much. Welcome to the misinformation age. Who knew it would start so soon after the information age.
- eightails 5y ago
  > Democracy as implemented is stupid. > I want to vote on policy I care about and understand, not a person I've never met who I can't necessarily trust that's meant to represent me. Representative democracy is designed as a compromise between giving power to the people and giving (what's perceived as) too much power to the people. In the case of a true direct democracy, many fear the ignorance and apathy of the average voter, and wonder if the majority rule would lead to tribalism and repression of minorities. That said, the few actual examples of direct democracy don't really seem to have borne these fears out. In a way it comes down to how much (or little) confidence you have in your fellow citizen; "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," and all that. I veer towards misanthropy, so from that perspective direct democracy doesn't do a lot for me... seems like there's no perfect system.

plugger 5y ago

> Don't forget they disarmed the people. SIGH. This isn't true and I wish Americans would stop saying it. You can own guns down here, even keep them in your house. Sure, you're limited to bolt actions/side by sides, etc; but there is a healthy shooting community down here. For instance, I've got a mate who owns 7 rifles, the largest of which is a .338 Lapua. What Australia did was break the 'gun culture' down here and ban semi-autos, pump actions, etc. And let's be honest, I'd take that over the 18 million ARs in circulation in the USA every day of the week. Not having semi-autos is preferable to daily shootings in the community.