3 ms·

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 th

by 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.
  - jpadkins 5y ago
    > made it easier to own them. citation? The penalty for gun ownership in occupied france was death penalty. Most scholarly work shows that Nazi government used gun registration to disarm the populations they wanted to oppress.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Easier by Germans of German blood in Germany. Prior gaining monopoly on power, they were the armed opposition on the streets. By the time Nazi occupied France, the Germany was dictatorship for a long time. There was no moving anywhere on that topic. And it is absurd to use occupied territory as argument on this point.

by 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.
- jpadkins 5y ago
  > made it easier to own them. citation? The penalty for gun ownership in occupied france was death penalty. Most scholarly work shows that Nazi government used gun registration to disarm the populations they wanted to oppress.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Easier by Germans of German blood in Germany. Prior gaining monopoly on power, they were the armed opposition on the streets. By the time Nazi occupied France, the Germany was dictatorship for a long time. There was no moving anywhere on that topic. And it is absurd to use occupied territory as argument on this point.