4 ms·

More damningly for the "guns preserve liberty" position, I'm pretty sure that, if anything, private arms had more of a role in resisting and suppressing the US

More damningly for the "guns preserve liberty" position, I'm pretty sure that, if anything, private arms had more of a role in resisting and suppressing the US civil rights movement, than in aiding it (and yes, I'm aware of the Black Panthers and the early history of 2nd amendment advocacy organizations). Women didn't gain the right to vote at gunpoint, nor did under-21s. Japanese-Americans went to the camps and had their property stolen, despite their guns. Guns don't seem to be doing much for liberty or justice for Native Americans. And so on. Truly: when have private arms been indispensable in advancing the cause of liberty in the US? We have lots of examples of expanding freedoms and liberties, and even a few of successfully resisting the curtailing of same (though we actually seem pretty bad at that despite all our guns, and tend to fix those things later, if we do at all, rather than avoid them in the first place), but when have guns been what did the trick? The closest thing I can think of is the Civil War, in which some organized regiments fought with personal muskets and rifles until they were issued something (much) better, but, like, a lot of those private arms landed on the "preserve slavery" side of that conflict, which seems to be a recurring problem with the private-arms-preserve-liberty thing, which is that they seem to be at least as useful for doing the opposite. They played a role in escalating criminal violence (e.g. Bleeding Kansas) without which, maybe, the course of the war would have been significantly different, but that's getting pretty far out into "butterfly flapping its wings in Japan" in terms of tracing causality or necessity, and again, the "keep people literally in chains" side got at least as much mileage out of private arms as the "but maybe don't, though" side, in that part of the conflict. [EDIT] Downvoters: I'm very interested in counter-examples, so please do post them, if you've got 'em.

nanis 5y ago
In general, the more credible the threat is, the less likely one would have to actually act on it. Having the ability to defend oneself makes it less likely that one will have to defend oneself.
- handrous 5y ago
  I strongly suspect this "fleet-in-being" effect of private arms only marginally affects outcomes, and even that is outweighed by their utility as a tool of oppression. The best I can figure as a credible argument for private arms ownership, is that it's a canary-in-a-coal-mine: states that retain private arms ownership probably aren't heading toward tyranny, but ones that lose them might—might—be. Seems pretty weak, still. Simply, when a pro-liberty or pro-democracy position is popular enough, guns don't seem to be needed—not even the threat of them, mass resistance absent guns seems to suffice. When those positions are not popular, guns don't have have a history of helping—in fact, they tend to be used to suppress those positions, if they play a role at all. Or do they? Again, I'd love some examples. I'm a big fan of argument-from-what's-actually-happened, when it comes to politics (and economics, for that matter) and my inability to find much of that sort of evidence in favor of widespread private firearms ownership, specifically when it's justified as being necessary to preserve liberty (there may remain other reasons to keep them around, but that's the usual argument for why we must not touch the 2nd Amendment, in the US), is why I'm at where I'm at on that issue.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >I strongly suspect this "fleet-in-being" effect of private arms only marginally affects outcomes, Damn near everything we quibble about in politics is about marginal outcomes.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Sure, but the degree of the effect matters a lot when the other position is "of course they're countries X and Y are turning into tyrannies—people don't own enough guns to stop it"—as if that's a major, or even decisive, factor. However, what I can tell, they're surely not that important, and any effect they do have is weak enough that even small effects that make them a liability to liberal democracy—which effects I believe are in evidence, given the clear role they've played as a tool for enforcing popular but illiberal positions—could easily nullify the benefits.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > states that retain private arms ownership probably aren't heading toward tyranny, but ones that lose them might—might—be. Seems pretty weak, still. It is weak. For instance, Nazi were cool with private guns and made it easier to own them. They liked themselves the guns and violence. And they were heading toward tyranny full speed.
chillwaves 5y ago
The downvotes come from conservatives who are insecure in their beliefs. Any comment that appears critical of that ideology receives downvotes.
watwut 5y ago
> when have private arms been indispensable in advancing the cause of liberty in the US? I guess John Brown triggering massive paranoia and escalation toward civil war should count.

nanis 5y ago

In general, the more credible the threat is, the less likely one would have to actually act on it. Having the ability to defend oneself makes it less likely that one will have to defend oneself.

handrous 5y ago
I strongly suspect this "fleet-in-being" effect of private arms only marginally affects outcomes, and even that is outweighed by their utility as a tool of oppression. The best I can figure as a credible argument for private arms ownership, is that it's a canary-in-a-coal-mine: states that retain private arms ownership probably aren't heading toward tyranny, but ones that lose them might—might—be. Seems pretty weak, still. Simply, when a pro-liberty or pro-democracy position is popular enough, guns don't seem to be needed—not even the threat of them, mass resistance absent guns seems to suffice. When those positions are not popular, guns don't have have a history of helping—in fact, they tend to be used to suppress those positions, if they play a role at all. Or do they? Again, I'd love some examples. I'm a big fan of argument-from-what's-actually-happened, when it comes to politics (and economics, for that matter) and my inability to find much of that sort of evidence in favor of widespread private firearms ownership, specifically when it's justified as being necessary to preserve liberty (there may remain other reasons to keep them around, but that's the usual argument for why we must not touch the 2nd Amendment, in the US), is why I'm at where I'm at on that issue.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >I strongly suspect this "fleet-in-being" effect of private arms only marginally affects outcomes, Damn near everything we quibble about in politics is about marginal outcomes.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Sure, but the degree of the effect matters a lot when the other position is "of course they're countries X and Y are turning into tyrannies—people don't own enough guns to stop it"—as if that's a major, or even decisive, factor. However, what I can tell, they're surely not that important, and any effect they do have is weak enough that even small effects that make them a liability to liberal democracy—which effects I believe are in evidence, given the clear role they've played as a tool for enforcing popular but illiberal positions—could easily nullify the benefits.
- watwut 5y ago
  > states that retain private arms ownership probably aren't heading toward tyranny, but ones that lose them might—might—be. Seems pretty weak, still. It is weak. For instance, Nazi were cool with private guns and made it easier to own them. They liked themselves the guns and violence. And they were heading toward tyranny full speed.

chillwaves 5y ago

The downvotes come from conservatives who are insecure in their beliefs. Any comment that appears critical of that ideology receives downvotes.

watwut 5y ago

> when have private arms been indispensable in advancing the cause of liberty in the US? I guess John Brown triggering massive paranoia and escalation toward civil war should count.