6 ms·

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

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.
- handrous 5y ago
  > You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Sorry, didn't occur to me to note the differences. The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very from your own government fighting a civil war or dealing with a domestic, guerrilla resistance, are the main things. I remain unconvinced that private arms are likely to be any kind of useful factor in resisting tyranny in a developed country, and also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose, even if they were useful for tyranny-resistance to begin with.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very different… That really doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. > also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose This is an interesting political idea that bears a lot more elaboration, but seems unconnected in principle to the other point.
    - handrous 5y ago
      > It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. Yes, I guess I just... figured it was extremely obvious that a foreign occupation resisted by locals and a civil war or domestic insurgency are very different, largely on those categories. I feel like I'm being asked to defend the statement that bicycles and airplanes are, though both modes of transportation, quite different in a bunch of important ways.
      - zepto 5y ago
        It’s obvious they are different. It’s not obvious what differences would render guns useless, which appears to be your position. I’m not asking you to arbitrarily explain how they are different. I’m asking you to explain how and why the differences you are thinking of make guns useless for civilians to own.
        handrous 5y ago
        Ah, I've got you. Sorry, I probably read poorly or something. Aggregating the differences, part of it is that the stakes are so much lower in a foreign occupation and that withdrawal to save any of several sorts of costs involved is an option that won't result in the toppling of the occupying state's government or loss of any of the occupying state's core territory or sovereignty, and the other part (also mentioned in my post) is that it's very common for a successful insurgency or rebellion [edit: against foreign occupiers, I mean, in this case] to have foreign aid, which often exceeds the benefit of private arms to such a degree that it's not clear a few folks having AKs mattered at all, so even in such cases–which are already quite different from a domestic conflict—it's usually not clear-cut that private arms made much difference. It'd help for the analysis if a state with a modern maneuver-focus equipped-and-trained army had faced a realistic domestic threat from rebels bearing private small arms... like, ever. There've been revolutions in such states (Russia, mainly—I'm actually struggling to think of another, since even the ones with maneuver-focus equipment usually hadn't managed the training for it, so fight very differently), but they've not really been the result of civil wars or armed insurrections. Such militaries have lost abroad, but not domestically, and usually against an enemy with one or more foreign state backers—and not by actual, outright defeat on the battlefield, but by convincing the occupier (the political leadership, not the military—they're usually not routes due to loss of morale) to cut their losses and go home. I strongly suspect that the circumstances that would render private arms enough to be any meaningful part of successful resistance against such a state in a civil war or insurrection, would also mean they weren't necessary for that success in the first place—that is, the circumstances would include such overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the populace, and/or enough support from the military, that a bunch of civilian-owned rifles wouldn't much matter for the outcome. There may be some narrow, unlikely set of circumstances in which they're really be the deciding factor, but at that point the cost/risk of keeping them around would have to be incredibly low to justify doing so specifically on the grounds that they're very important for resisting tyranny (there are other justifications for firearms ownership, of course).
noxer 5y ago
History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you wanted but good enough for me. >I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny) They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
- handrous 5y ago
  > They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.) The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
  - noxer 5y ago
    So the worst thing that could happen is that people who will be ordered to do the dirty work already have guns rather than whoever controls them has to arm them first. Seems to be a minor detail not something that has any effect on larger outcome of conflicts.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Yes, I would agree that private arms rarely, bordering on never, have much effect either way, unless a government is already extremely weak, and then the arms often aid in establishing (perhaps another, rather than a new one) tyranny, not ending it.

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.

handrous 5y ago
> You say they are different, but you don’t say why. Sorry, didn't occur to me to note the differences. The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very from your own government fighting a civil war or dealing with a domestic, guerrilla resistance, are the main things. I remain unconvinced that private arms are likely to be any kind of useful factor in resisting tyranny in a developed country, and also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose, even if they were useful for tyranny-resistance to begin with.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The incentives, motivations, goals, costs, and resources for a foreign government fighting on your soil are all very different… That really doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. > also unconvinced that they're more likely to be used to that end than in service of the precisely the opposite purpose This is an interesting political idea that bears a lot more elaboration, but seems unconnected in principle to the other point.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > It’s another way of saying they aren’t the same in various ways. Yes, I guess I just... figured it was extremely obvious that a foreign occupation resisted by locals and a civil war or domestic insurgency are very different, largely on those categories. I feel like I'm being asked to defend the statement that bicycles and airplanes are, though both modes of transportation, quite different in a bunch of important ways.
    - zepto 5y ago
      It’s obvious they are different. It’s not obvious what differences would render guns useless, which appears to be your position. I’m not asking you to arbitrarily explain how they are different. I’m asking you to explain how and why the differences you are thinking of make guns useless for civilians to own.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Ah, I've got you. Sorry, I probably read poorly or something. Aggregating the differences, part of it is that the stakes are so much lower in a foreign occupation and that withdrawal to save any of several sorts of costs involved is an option that won't result in the toppling of the occupying state's government or loss of any of the occupying state's core territory or sovereignty, and the other part (also mentioned in my post) is that it's very common for a successful insurgency or rebellion [edit: against foreign occupiers, I mean, in this case] to have foreign aid, which often exceeds the benefit of private arms to such a degree that it's not clear a few folks having AKs mattered at all, so even in such cases–which are already quite different from a domestic conflict—it's usually not clear-cut that private arms made much difference. It'd help for the analysis if a state with a modern maneuver-focus equipped-and-trained army had faced a realistic domestic threat from rebels bearing private small arms... like, ever. There've been revolutions in such states (Russia, mainly—I'm actually struggling to think of another, since even the ones with maneuver-focus equipment usually hadn't managed the training for it, so fight very differently), but they've not really been the result of civil wars or armed insurrections. Such militaries have lost abroad, but not domestically, and usually against an enemy with one or more foreign state backers—and not by actual, outright defeat on the battlefield, but by convincing the occupier (the political leadership, not the military—they're usually not routes due to loss of morale) to cut their losses and go home. I strongly suspect that the circumstances that would render private arms enough to be any meaningful part of successful resistance against such a state in a civil war or insurrection, would also mean they weren't necessary for that success in the first place—that is, the circumstances would include such overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the populace, and/or enough support from the military, that a bunch of civilian-owned rifles wouldn't much matter for the outcome. There may be some narrow, unlikely set of circumstances in which they're really be the deciding factor, but at that point the cost/risk of keeping them around would have to be incredibly low to justify doing so specifically on the grounds that they're very important for resisting tyranny (there are other justifications for firearms ownership, of course).

noxer 5y ago

History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you wanted but good enough for me. >I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny) They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)

handrous 5y ago
> They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.) The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
- noxer 5y ago
  So the worst thing that could happen is that people who will be ordered to do the dirty work already have guns rather than whoever controls them has to arm them first. Seems to be a minor detail not something that has any effect on larger outcome of conflicts.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Yes, I would agree that private arms rarely, bordering on never, have much effect either way, unless a government is already extremely weak, and then the arms often aid in establishing (perhaps another, rather than a new one) tyranny, not ending it.