3 ms·

It's the real and perceived threat of resistance. Do you think 'compliance officers' would be more willing/confident going door to door in a society that is arm

It's the real and perceived threat of resistance. Do you think 'compliance officers' would be more willing/confident going door to door in a society that is armed or disarmed? A different approach might have been a used in East Germany if every house the Stasi went into looking for 'undesirables' had the potential for meeting a shotgun.

paranoidrobot 5y ago
What's a compliance officer, and why are they going to people's homes? > A different approach might have been a used in East Germany if every house the Stasi went into looking for 'undesirables' had the potential for meeting a shotgun. Not everything has to be compared to Nazi Germany. I'll note that the lower possession of guns does have a difference in how we interact with the police, ad how the police interact with everyone else. For instance, Officer-involved shootings are practically non-existent. For that matter, shootings of any kind are practically non-existent. No-knock / SWAT style raids and use of pyrotechnics/flash-bangs/etc are reserved for where there's a lot more evidence that someone has a large number of weapons. Nobody is afraid they might get shot by a police officer because they reached into their glove box or into their pocket. I'm not saying things are all rainbows and unicorns, but still... I don't see how turning up to talk to your representatives with a whole bunch of weapons is going to make the conversation go any better.
- SailingSperm 5y ago
  A compliance officer is a theoretical example role (that was meant to be easy to draw parallels to) of a person tasked with checking compliance of some form. (Eg. that you're Isolating / no visitors, no contraband, your telescreen is on etc.) Nazi Germany is used as hyperbole - because it's both that and historically true (demonstrating the hyperbole to be still tangible). I agree there are some great things about living in a society largely free from gun crime and the risk of being unnecessarily shot by police. But in Australia we have basically no meaningful internal backstop should a tyrannical government sweep over us. I'm also definitely not advocating using or displaying weapons when talking with your representatives. I think that's a dishonest and uncharitable interpretation of what I've written. I am saying however that any laws may find it difficult for broad enforcement in a society that is armed and displeased with whatever law is attempting to be enforced -- and that that is a deterrent to creating such laws in the first place.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Not everything has to be compared to Nazi Germany. Exactly. And that's why he said East Germany and not Nazi Germany. If you don't like it you can easily substitute in a plethora of other soviet satellite states that had secret police.

paranoidrobot 5y ago

What's a compliance officer, and why are they going to people's homes? > A different approach might have been a used in East Germany if every house the Stasi went into looking for 'undesirables' had the potential for meeting a shotgun. Not everything has to be compared to Nazi Germany. I'll note that the lower possession of guns does have a difference in how we interact with the police, ad how the police interact with everyone else. For instance, Officer-involved shootings are practically non-existent. For that matter, shootings of any kind are practically non-existent. No-knock / SWAT style raids and use of pyrotechnics/flash-bangs/etc are reserved for where there's a lot more evidence that someone has a large number of weapons. Nobody is afraid they might get shot by a police officer because they reached into their glove box or into their pocket. I'm not saying things are all rainbows and unicorns, but still... I don't see how turning up to talk to your representatives with a whole bunch of weapons is going to make the conversation go any better.

SailingSperm 5y ago
A compliance officer is a theoretical example role (that was meant to be easy to draw parallels to) of a person tasked with checking compliance of some form. (Eg. that you're Isolating / no visitors, no contraband, your telescreen is on etc.) Nazi Germany is used as hyperbole - because it's both that and historically true (demonstrating the hyperbole to be still tangible). I agree there are some great things about living in a society largely free from gun crime and the risk of being unnecessarily shot by police. But in Australia we have basically no meaningful internal backstop should a tyrannical government sweep over us. I'm also definitely not advocating using or displaying weapons when talking with your representatives. I think that's a dishonest and uncharitable interpretation of what I've written. I am saying however that any laws may find it difficult for broad enforcement in a society that is armed and displeased with whatever law is attempting to be enforced -- and that that is a deterrent to creating such laws in the first place.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Not everything has to be compared to Nazi Germany. Exactly. And that's why he said East Germany and not Nazi Germany. If you don't like it you can easily substitute in a plethora of other soviet satellite states that had secret police.