21 ms·

PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I fully agree with anti-gun crowd that having vast majority of guns in hands of citizens (legally

PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I fully agree with anti-gun crowd that having vast majority of guns in hands of citizens (legally or illegally) leads to more deaths. USA's comparison with Angola is actually more serious than the numbers tell you because you need to realize that USA has far better medical response and doctors trained to handle gunshot wounds. So to truly compare Angola and USA you might have to increase USA's number with those who are shot instead of dead. Having said that I am totally for guns in the hands of citizens. Mostly because I think it acts as a bulwark against further restrictions. After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia. Every constitutional right has its price. Anyone who fails to see this is not honest. Give police the power to search you without warrant and we almost certainly will solve more crimes. Force individual to testify against themselves and we will most certainly keep more child rapists in jail. But then as a society we need to figure out the trade-off and in my personal case I would rather keep my guns and face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound than surrender my guns. > Blatant corruption, lobbying, outright incompetent representatives, abuses of power, erosion of human rights, blatant disregard for human rights. If Americans didn't fight against the Patriot act, wars, torture, what will they fight for/against? Mask mandates? In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society. Representatives are incompetent everywhere. American abuse of power is nowhere close to what EU or AU does to its citizens. I am not sure wha erosion of human rights you are talking in USA.

csours 5y ago
So if more Texas liberal women were armed, they would still have the right to choose to get an abortion?
- trhway 5y ago
  No. The point of trade-off is that you get some you lose some. They got guns rights and lost abortion rights. Or like back then with the Prohibition and women's suffrage https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffrage-metoo/ https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra... "It became clear to them that giving women the right to vote was only way they could ban alcohol."
- booleandilemma 5y ago
  If they can shoot the men trying to rape them maybe they won’t have to?
  - adamredwoods 5y ago
    Have you ever tried to pull a gun on someone attacking you? I think most people find it easier to fantasize these 'armed defense' reactions then to actually experience one.
    - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
      The general idea is to first avoid such situations, and then to have your hand on your gun's grip, or pull it before it's too late. You know, the whole CONSTANT VIGILANCE! thing. If you're walking around in Condition White all the time you're unlikely to succeed. But that doesn't describe many if not most US concealed carriers. The fact that you cast this as "fantasy" tells us it's not something you've ever seriously considered.
      - adamredwoods 5y ago
        LOL, yes, if we were only all just like Joe Zamudio in 2011: >> “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ “ https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/joe-zamudio-and-the-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-how-an-armed-hero-nearly-shot-the-wrong-man.html https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/joe-zamudio-and-the-gab... >> But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.
    - bdibs 5y ago
      The CDC[0] links to a report[1] mentioning estimates of anywhere from 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the previous comment, just adding some context. 0: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... 1: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities...
brodouevencode 5y ago
> face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound Isn't that a very high estimation?
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  It's very optimistic to say the least...maybe the OP was assuming the shooter is just a really poor marksman, or using a BB gun? That said...I'd take being shot by a bullet any day compared to being shot by a modern bow/crossbow. Definitely a better chance of surviving the bullet.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The stat might reflect reality. But reality reality probably includes a lot of people shot in extremities and shrapnel bouncing back from steel targets. If someone is shooting to stop a threat they're probably gonna have better than 5/1000 odds of permanently stopping the threat.
xmprt 5y ago
The US government probably seems less corrupt than the EU because of its laid back approach to a lot of policies. However, that's exactly the type of corruption that a lot of people are talking about. The country needs a lot of change to tackle big problems like climate change and increasing wealth inequality however the government is sitting back doing nothing because many representatives are lobbied by big interests to let the big interests continue doing what they're doing.
- nostromo 5y ago
  Why blame lobbyists for this? You can see for yourself what actual Americans think the "most important problem" they're facing is: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.asp... Global warming and income inequality are so low they barely register in the poll at all. Representatives follow their constituents.
  - xmprt 5y ago
    Over the last few years it's become increasingly clear that many people don't think for themselves and will believe in whatever their favorite media tells them. A lot can be done to convince the population that climate change and income inequality aren't major issues. Also, that poll seems flawed because it asks a superlative question (what is the "most" important problem) instead of using something like ranked choice where perhaps climate change and income inequality were everyone's second and third options.
dkdk8283 5y ago
The USA is just as corrupt but the price is substantially higher. With the resources of a business you can almost certainly get away with many things.
slg 5y ago
What evidence do you have for suggesting that a citizenry with guns serves to protect other freedoms? The US generally isn't among the top countries on the various international freedom indexes[1] despite our prevalence of guns. We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  I have a very simple litmus test. In how many countries can you openly (with lots of publicity) organize "Draw a Muhammad" or "Burn the bible" events.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    Along that line of thinking it's now illegal to burn the US flag.
    - nverno 5y ago
      No, it is legal to burn the US flag assuming it's your flag (in the United States)
      - rkk3 5y ago
        Sort of, there are still laws against it in almost every state. https://apnews.com/article/803cf0e75e924afbbbe9c77f15517da5 https://apnews.com/article/803cf0e75e924afbbbe9c77f15517da5
        nverno 5y ago
        Wow, it is infuriating that people are still getting harassed for that. However, the fact that it is constitutionally protected basically precludes any of those charges from being pursued. Apparently, sometimes flag burners are harassed with other petty crimes like theft/littering.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I don't even care about the tyranny aspect- I own guns because I like owning guns and it's my right. I don't need to justify it to anybody.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
8note 5y ago
In america, are you allowed to shoot a police officer who is violating your rights?
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  It's always retrospective, of course, because whether you are "allowed" will be determined in court afterwards. The answer is sometimes yes. Usually you're only allowed to kill, or attempt to kill people when your or someone else's life is immediately at risk.
- armenarmen 5y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/some-justice-in-texas-the-raid-on-henry-magee/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/s...
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  No...because no matter what the reality is, you will be painted as a criminal, and charged/convicted as such. It's more likely there is no charge/conviction step, and instead you will be murdered by another police officer under a false pretext of a "firefight". The story that we all hear will not reflect reality; you will take the truth to your grave.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  Yes; it usually doesn't end well, and as NoImmatureAdHom notes the rights violation has to rise to the level at which lethal force is justified in self-defense, but it does happen and people get cleared of the inevitable charges, that's happened in my home town although the shooting did not kill the officer. And armenarmen's link doesn't include the case where black grandmother was killed in her dwelling, that didn't end well for the police.
- mmmpop 5y ago
  In America you can do anything you want because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty... in theory at least. Times are a changin'.
- 5y ago
Maarten88 5y ago
> In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society. You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion. The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc). If democracy would work as intended then "common sense" limitations would have been introduced long ago. Note that I am not talking about corruption in the criminal sense: US politics and supreme court have fully legalized and embraced it, conflating it with lobbying.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc). Strange, isn't it, how polling organizations don't quite seem to capture what the people actually want and vote for. Actually, your list of "banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals" is already in place, although the first is limited to a few hundred thousand in civilian hands. Two last time I checked had been used in crimes, the first incident a murder by a policeman.
- splintercell 5y ago
  Please note that automatic weapons are already banned from civilian possession. Regarding psychiatric patients and criminals, this has an exact opposite effect that you want. People are far more scared of seeking psychiatric help when they know that they’re going to lose their rights. This is an open secret in gun community to never mention to a doctor that you have guns, and this is an indirect message to not seek psychiatric help unless you wanna lose your guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
klyrs 5y ago
> After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia. This is extremely shaky reasoning. You've done nothing to prove that the 2nd amendment is actually protecting these rights, only mentioned the existence of two facts and asserted a causative relationship between them. Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists? Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms? The 4th amendment was gutted into oblivion in pursuit of the War on Terror -- why didn't the armed citizenry protect our rights?
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists? No, because there _are_ armed activists. Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms? See Hong Kong of late. Many banners seen during free-speech protests there lamented their lack of a "2nd Amendment".
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > No, because there _are_ armed activists. No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights. There's disagreements on finer points of where the lines are drawn, but that's handled in courts and legislation, and rarely ever guns ablazing. Compare to Hong Kong, which is not governed by consent of the governed.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights Wasn't there an impeachment procedure blatantly sabotaged by one of said parties like last year? Didn't the same party blatantly say they're stacking the supreme court in their favour up to the last possible moment, in an extremely hypocritical manner after refusing to accept Obama's nominees in his last year? Didn't multiple US presidents abuse and violate human rights with illegal wars and torture, mass surveillance? Didn't a US president order the murder of a US citizen without due process? Didn't a US state create a blatantly unconstitutional law for witch hunting women ? From across the pond, it seems that most US politicians in power, mostly from one of the parties, are wiping their asses with the the US constitution.
AQuantized 5y ago
I think there are many rights violated as a result of lobbying. Access to basic healthcare is curtailed in the name of profit, largely as a result of the power of lobbyists. I think this has a very large functional effect on the freedom of everyday people. Even if they have reasonable means they may be essentially forced to continue working for an employer who provides health insurance or risk personal financial ruin if poor health befalls them. The power exerted by 3 letter agencies is greater than any other western nation in my opinion. They are massively bloated with excess capital and power, and it has allowed them to indefinitely extend their jurisdiction until it significantly overlaps with people's right to privacy. That said I doubt either of these issues would be much improved without guns. An armed population seems mostly incidental. One downside of focusing on armed resistance, however, is that you can easily delude yourself into thinking you're better protected from tyranny, when in actuality the war is already being lost in courtrooms and political backrooms without a shot being fired.
- splintercell 5y ago
  Lobbying is simply an open system of advocacy where all the other countries have closed and informal systems.
treeman79 5y ago
Situations like China effectively exterminating populations they don’t like are why gun rights are so important. Order men to re-education camps and forcing their women to sleep in same bed as police/watchdogs gets a lot less appealing if the woman can shoot their government mandated rapist.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Yeah, I cannot fathom the carnage and full blown civil war in Northwestern China if Uighers had guns.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Or maybe nothing would have happened because the CCP would have chosen not to use concentration camps on an armed population.
    - LQexplanation 5y ago
      Yes, in the same way that nothing wrong happened during Cultural Revolution when armed factions of Red Guard fight with each other. Also, I'm not sure how you imagine small militia fighting with worlds biggest army.
      - zepto 5y ago
        All we know is that you are certain that the CCP would have crushed the Uighurs no matter how well armed they were. That’s all well and good. My point is that a society which trusted all of its civilians to be armed would be very different from the communist China of today.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  Mao used a policy of "rifle taxes" to disarm the rest of the country, and I shouldn't have to repeat his single most famous quote.
nverno 5y ago
Yes, personally I would much rather put my trust in my neighboring citizens than the government. I trust myself and other citizens to stand up for our rights more than I trust the government to protect them. So, I'd rather citizens be armed than the government. IIRC Switzerland has an interesting citizen militia/gun ownership situation as well.
- adamredwoods 5y ago
  Sadly, our neighborhood thinks everyone is a potential criminal and hangs signs around saying "I don't call 911" with a picture of a gun. This is not inviting to other neighbors, and not a way to build trust with one another.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    I grew up in an area where people have these signs and bumper stickers, and never had a problem socializing. I saw no evidence that people couldn't trust their neighbors or community. I've seen these in rural and urban places as well, and still haven't seen any issue like what you're suggesting. What's the problem supposed to be?
    - adamredwoods 5y ago
      How do those signs introduce trust by advertising violence? Furthermore, I do not want my children playing with other families who have guns inside the household. I don't see it as safe. Why hang a sign that insinuates "I may shoot you", unless that person really means it?
      - paisawalla 5y ago
        The signs are clearly intended for would-be criminals, that is the well understood meaning of a phrase like "we don't call 911" or "this house protected by Smith and Wesson". Nobody who lives next to such a house thinks these signs describe them or are meant for them at all, because they aren't criminals. The "I may shoot you" interpretation never occurs to them, because they don't think "I may rob this house" either. You make a fundamental mistake by thinking that the sign has any effect on how much I trust my neighbors. Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.
Jedd 5y ago
> PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I don't understand the pride bit. It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. (I'm in Australia, where we have some truly horrendous legislation, but I totally agree with our gun ownership laws here, and echo other people's observations that gun ownership does not seem to equate to, or ineluctably lead to, better laws / more freedoms outside the right 'to own lethal weapons' itself.) Perhaps I could interest you in some Iain M Banks (taken from Excession) : "It could see that - by some criteria - a warship, just by the perfectly articulated purity of its purpose, was the most beautiful single artifact the Culture was capable of producing, and at the same time understand the paucity of moral vision such a judgement implied. To fully appreciate the beauty of a weapon was to admit to a kind of shortsightedness close to blindness, to confess to a sort of stupidity. The weapon was not itself; nothing was solely itself. The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the love, or just the appreciation of weapons was a kind of tragedy."
- nverno 5y ago
  > It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms. Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. One way to significantly erode individual's/citizen's power, and in turn give power to government, is take away their ability to defend themselves. People worry that as government becomes more powerful and citizens more reliant there is greater likelihood of oppressive government, in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope
  - Jedd 5y ago
    > Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. For context, can you clarify if the many you're referring to there are some fellow USA citizens? If so, I'll note that USA is < 5% of global population, and also note a very fresh Pew paper[0] which indicated more than half of that population was keen on stricter gun controls. So 'many' has some caveats around it. > They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons? If it's the former, then we're back to a basic escalation problem, and it's what most other western nation states have avoided falling prey to by, simply, not playing that game. If you trust your fellow citizens with arms - who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'? As to: > ... in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope. I really can't speak to what it looks like from within the borders of the USA, but from outside, it feels that the USA is well down that slippery slope (of eroded freedoms, and citizenry exploitation) compared to many other democratic nations - so guns in the hands of private citizens don't appear to be a panacea. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a...
analog31 5y ago
What rights of mine have gun owners protected? The 2nd amendment has protected the 2nd amendment, through compliant courts that have turned gun ownership into an entitlement.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  I think "no taxation without representation" was a major one (unless you live in Washington DC, sorry)
  - analog31 5y ago
    Over the years, taxation has gone up and down. Representation has gone up and down (universal suffrage, countered by gerrymandering and voter suppression). I don't see a relationship.
megablast 5y ago
As a proud owner of a pair of pants, what are you so proud about?? You went and bought a gun??
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere, the pride usually stems from self reliance.
  - amelius 5y ago
    If you want self-reliance, then get a medical degree. This will bring you further than owning a gun, especially in the US.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Don't be ridiculous.
onemiketwelve 5y ago
Let me start off by saying I love playing with guns, and really frankly anything gun related. I don't know why it is but I've just been fascinated with them since I was a kid. Ok that said, I don't understand how guns protect us from the government. I think the biggest threats area slow and mundane. Ie erosion of rights or increasing power of some portion of the government over decades. There's no one cataclysmic event that overnight would make sane people take up arms and start popping off. Likewise, let's say the government went all evil-like. Like in a movie. And you somehow got a huge citizen resistance trying to fight the government forces, unlike in real life where apparently the country would be split and half would join the government forces. The government has armor, air support, artillery, surveillance, and logistics. This isn't the 1700s. Just access to small arms is meaningless unless the 2nd amendment is broadened to include all weapons. And even then, machine guns, manpads, tanks and heat are just tools and a tiny, inconsequential part of warfare. You always see gun people plinking away at stationary targets. Arguing about mlok vs picatinny. Maybe practicing their tacticool speed reloads. You rarely see people practicing force on force cqb, urban fighting, how to fight as a team.
- tommymachine 5y ago
  Access to small arms has proven anything but meaningless for the Taliban.
- evilos 5y ago
  IMO citizens being well armed is deterrence. It makes the likelihood of 'evil martial law' government less likely by increasing the perceived cost. If you truly disarmed the entire country (something I consider basically impossible), it makes a military coup/governance much more feasible. One of the main lessons of modern history is that insurgencies are incredibly cost effective ways to fight a stronger opponent. You basically have to be willing to commit terrible crimes against humanity to overcome them. Of course this is all theorizing. I don't America is in danger of that sort of civil war just yet.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    The moment anybody tried to organise armed resistance to the government, they would instantly be declared “terrorists” and taken out by legal means or by force. The US government agencies have such information supremacy that it is nearly impossible for any armed groups to organise without the government knowing about it.
mbrodersen 5y ago
USA ranks 25 according to this: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020# https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020# So yes better than 50% but not great.

csours 5y ago

So if more Texas liberal women were armed, they would still have the right to choose to get an abortion?

trhway 5y ago
No. The point of trade-off is that you get some you lose some. They got guns rights and lost abortion rights. Or like back then with the Prohibition and women's suffrage https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffrage-metoo/ https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra... "It became clear to them that giving women the right to vote was only way they could ban alcohol."
booleandilemma 5y ago
If they can shoot the men trying to rape them maybe they won’t have to?
- adamredwoods 5y ago
  Have you ever tried to pull a gun on someone attacking you? I think most people find it easier to fantasize these 'armed defense' reactions then to actually experience one.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    The general idea is to first avoid such situations, and then to have your hand on your gun's grip, or pull it before it's too late. You know, the whole CONSTANT VIGILANCE! thing. If you're walking around in Condition White all the time you're unlikely to succeed. But that doesn't describe many if not most US concealed carriers. The fact that you cast this as "fantasy" tells us it's not something you've ever seriously considered.
    - adamredwoods 5y ago
      LOL, yes, if we were only all just like Joe Zamudio in 2011: >> “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ “ https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/joe-zamudio-and-the-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-how-an-armed-hero-nearly-shot-the-wrong-man.html https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/joe-zamudio-and-the-gab... >> But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.
  - bdibs 5y ago
    The CDC[0] links to a report[1] mentioning estimates of anywhere from 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the previous comment, just adding some context. 0: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... 1: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities...

brodouevencode 5y ago

> face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound Isn't that a very high estimation?

clipradiowallet 5y ago
It's very optimistic to say the least...maybe the OP was assuming the shooter is just a really poor marksman, or using a BB gun? That said...I'd take being shot by a bullet any day compared to being shot by a modern bow/crossbow. Definitely a better chance of surviving the bullet.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The stat might reflect reality. But reality reality probably includes a lot of people shot in extremities and shrapnel bouncing back from steel targets. If someone is shooting to stop a threat they're probably gonna have better than 5/1000 odds of permanently stopping the threat.

xmprt 5y ago

The US government probably seems less corrupt than the EU because of its laid back approach to a lot of policies. However, that's exactly the type of corruption that a lot of people are talking about. The country needs a lot of change to tackle big problems like climate change and increasing wealth inequality however the government is sitting back doing nothing because many representatives are lobbied by big interests to let the big interests continue doing what they're doing.

nostromo 5y ago
Why blame lobbyists for this? You can see for yourself what actual Americans think the "most important problem" they're facing is: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.asp... Global warming and income inequality are so low they barely register in the poll at all. Representatives follow their constituents.
- xmprt 5y ago
  Over the last few years it's become increasingly clear that many people don't think for themselves and will believe in whatever their favorite media tells them. A lot can be done to convince the population that climate change and income inequality aren't major issues. Also, that poll seems flawed because it asks a superlative question (what is the "most" important problem) instead of using something like ranked choice where perhaps climate change and income inequality were everyone's second and third options.

dkdk8283 5y ago

The USA is just as corrupt but the price is substantially higher. With the resources of a business you can almost certainly get away with many things.

slg 5y ago

What evidence do you have for suggesting that a citizenry with guns serves to protect other freedoms? The US generally isn't among the top countries on the various international freedom indexes[1] despite our prevalence of guns. We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

KorematsuFredt 5y ago
I have a very simple litmus test. In how many countries can you openly (with lots of publicity) organize "Draw a Muhammad" or "Burn the bible" events.
- rkk3 5y ago
  Along that line of thinking it's now illegal to burn the US flag.
  - nverno 5y ago
    No, it is legal to burn the US flag assuming it's your flag (in the United States)
    - rkk3 5y ago
      Sort of, there are still laws against it in almost every state. https://apnews.com/article/803cf0e75e924afbbbe9c77f15517da5 https://apnews.com/article/803cf0e75e924afbbbe9c77f15517da5
      - nverno 5y ago
        Wow, it is infuriating that people are still getting harassed for that. However, the fact that it is constitutionally protected basically precludes any of those charges from being pursued. Apparently, sometimes flag burners are harassed with other petty crimes like theft/littering.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I don't even care about the tyranny aspect- I own guns because I like owning guns and it's my right. I don't need to justify it to anybody.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

8note 5y ago

In america, are you allowed to shoot a police officer who is violating your rights?

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
It's always retrospective, of course, because whether you are "allowed" will be determined in court afterwards. The answer is sometimes yes. Usually you're only allowed to kill, or attempt to kill people when your or someone else's life is immediately at risk.
armenarmen 5y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/some-justice-in-texas-the-raid-on-henry-magee/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/s...
clipradiowallet 5y ago
No...because no matter what the reality is, you will be painted as a criminal, and charged/convicted as such. It's more likely there is no charge/conviction step, and instead you will be murdered by another police officer under a false pretext of a "firefight". The story that we all hear will not reflect reality; you will take the truth to your grave.
Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
Yes; it usually doesn't end well, and as NoImmatureAdHom notes the rights violation has to rise to the level at which lethal force is justified in self-defense, but it does happen and people get cleared of the inevitable charges, that's happened in my home town although the shooting did not kill the officer. And armenarmen's link doesn't include the case where black grandmother was killed in her dwelling, that didn't end well for the police.
mmmpop 5y ago
In America you can do anything you want because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty... in theory at least. Times are a changin'.
5y ago

Maarten88 5y ago

> In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society. You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion. The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc). If democracy would work as intended then "common sense" limitations would have been introduced long ago. Note that I am not talking about corruption in the criminal sense: US politics and supreme court have fully legalized and embraced it, conflating it with lobbying.

Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc). Strange, isn't it, how polling organizations don't quite seem to capture what the people actually want and vote for. Actually, your list of "banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals" is already in place, although the first is limited to a few hundred thousand in civilian hands. Two last time I checked had been used in crimes, the first incident a murder by a policeman.
splintercell 5y ago
Please note that automatic weapons are already banned from civilian possession. Regarding psychiatric patients and criminals, this has an exact opposite effect that you want. People are far more scared of seeking psychiatric help when they know that they’re going to lose their rights. This is an open secret in gun community to never mention to a doctor that you have guns, and this is an indirect message to not seek psychiatric help unless you wanna lose your guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...

klyrs 5y ago

> After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia. This is extremely shaky reasoning. You've done nothing to prove that the 2nd amendment is actually protecting these rights, only mentioned the existence of two facts and asserted a causative relationship between them. Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists? Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms? The 4th amendment was gutted into oblivion in pursuit of the War on Terror -- why didn't the armed citizenry protect our rights?

ctdonath 5y ago
Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists? No, because there _are_ armed activists. Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms? See Hong Kong of late. Many banners seen during free-speech protests there lamented their lack of a "2nd Amendment".
- klyrs 5y ago
  > No, because there _are_ armed activists. No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights. There's disagreements on finer points of where the lines are drawn, but that's handled in courts and legislation, and rarely ever guns ablazing. Compare to Hong Kong, which is not governed by consent of the governed.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights Wasn't there an impeachment procedure blatantly sabotaged by one of said parties like last year? Didn't the same party blatantly say they're stacking the supreme court in their favour up to the last possible moment, in an extremely hypocritical manner after refusing to accept Obama's nominees in his last year? Didn't multiple US presidents abuse and violate human rights with illegal wars and torture, mass surveillance? Didn't a US president order the murder of a US citizen without due process? Didn't a US state create a blatantly unconstitutional law for witch hunting women ? From across the pond, it seems that most US politicians in power, mostly from one of the parties, are wiping their asses with the the US constitution.

AQuantized 5y ago

I think there are many rights violated as a result of lobbying. Access to basic healthcare is curtailed in the name of profit, largely as a result of the power of lobbyists. I think this has a very large functional effect on the freedom of everyday people. Even if they have reasonable means they may be essentially forced to continue working for an employer who provides health insurance or risk personal financial ruin if poor health befalls them. The power exerted by 3 letter agencies is greater than any other western nation in my opinion. They are massively bloated with excess capital and power, and it has allowed them to indefinitely extend their jurisdiction until it significantly overlaps with people's right to privacy. That said I doubt either of these issues would be much improved without guns. An armed population seems mostly incidental. One downside of focusing on armed resistance, however, is that you can easily delude yourself into thinking you're better protected from tyranny, when in actuality the war is already being lost in courtrooms and political backrooms without a shot being fired.

splintercell 5y ago
Lobbying is simply an open system of advocacy where all the other countries have closed and informal systems.

treeman79 5y ago

Situations like China effectively exterminating populations they don’t like are why gun rights are so important. Order men to re-education camps and forcing their women to sleep in same bed as police/watchdogs gets a lot less appealing if the woman can shoot their government mandated rapist.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Yeah, I cannot fathom the carnage and full blown civil war in Northwestern China if Uighers had guns.
- zepto 5y ago
  Or maybe nothing would have happened because the CCP would have chosen not to use concentration camps on an armed population.
  - LQexplanation 5y ago
    Yes, in the same way that nothing wrong happened during Cultural Revolution when armed factions of Red Guard fight with each other. Also, I'm not sure how you imagine small militia fighting with worlds biggest army.
    - zepto 5y ago
      All we know is that you are certain that the CCP would have crushed the Uighurs no matter how well armed they were. That’s all well and good. My point is that a society which trusted all of its civilians to be armed would be very different from the communist China of today.
Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
Mao used a policy of "rifle taxes" to disarm the rest of the country, and I shouldn't have to repeat his single most famous quote.

nverno 5y ago

Yes, personally I would much rather put my trust in my neighboring citizens than the government. I trust myself and other citizens to stand up for our rights more than I trust the government to protect them. So, I'd rather citizens be armed than the government. IIRC Switzerland has an interesting citizen militia/gun ownership situation as well.

adamredwoods 5y ago
Sadly, our neighborhood thinks everyone is a potential criminal and hangs signs around saying "I don't call 911" with a picture of a gun. This is not inviting to other neighbors, and not a way to build trust with one another.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  I grew up in an area where people have these signs and bumper stickers, and never had a problem socializing. I saw no evidence that people couldn't trust their neighbors or community. I've seen these in rural and urban places as well, and still haven't seen any issue like what you're suggesting. What's the problem supposed to be?
  - adamredwoods 5y ago
    How do those signs introduce trust by advertising violence? Furthermore, I do not want my children playing with other families who have guns inside the household. I don't see it as safe. Why hang a sign that insinuates "I may shoot you", unless that person really means it?
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      The signs are clearly intended for would-be criminals, that is the well understood meaning of a phrase like "we don't call 911" or "this house protected by Smith and Wesson". Nobody who lives next to such a house thinks these signs describe them or are meant for them at all, because they aren't criminals. The "I may shoot you" interpretation never occurs to them, because they don't think "I may rob this house" either. You make a fundamental mistake by thinking that the sign has any effect on how much I trust my neighbors. Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.

Jedd 5y ago

> PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I don't understand the pride bit. It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. (I'm in Australia, where we have some truly horrendous legislation, but I totally agree with our gun ownership laws here, and echo other people's observations that gun ownership does not seem to equate to, or ineluctably lead to, better laws / more freedoms outside the right 'to own lethal weapons' itself.) Perhaps I could interest you in some Iain M Banks (taken from Excession) : "It could see that - by some criteria - a warship, just by the perfectly articulated purity of its purpose, was the most beautiful single artifact the Culture was capable of producing, and at the same time understand the paucity of moral vision such a judgement implied. To fully appreciate the beauty of a weapon was to admit to a kind of shortsightedness close to blindness, to confess to a sort of stupidity. The weapon was not itself; nothing was solely itself. The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the love, or just the appreciation of weapons was a kind of tragedy."

nverno 5y ago
> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms. Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. One way to significantly erode individual's/citizen's power, and in turn give power to government, is take away their ability to defend themselves. People worry that as government becomes more powerful and citizens more reliant there is greater likelihood of oppressive government, in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope
- Jedd 5y ago
  > Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. For context, can you clarify if the many you're referring to there are some fellow USA citizens? If so, I'll note that USA is < 5% of global population, and also note a very fresh Pew paper[0] which indicated more than half of that population was keen on stricter gun controls. So 'many' has some caveats around it. > They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons? If it's the former, then we're back to a basic escalation problem, and it's what most other western nation states have avoided falling prey to by, simply, not playing that game. If you trust your fellow citizens with arms - who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'? As to: > ... in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope. I really can't speak to what it looks like from within the borders of the USA, but from outside, it feels that the USA is well down that slippery slope (of eroded freedoms, and citizenry exploitation) compared to many other democratic nations - so guns in the hands of private citizens don't appear to be a panacea. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a...

analog31 5y ago

What rights of mine have gun owners protected? The 2nd amendment has protected the 2nd amendment, through compliant courts that have turned gun ownership into an entitlement.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
I think "no taxation without representation" was a major one (unless you live in Washington DC, sorry)
- analog31 5y ago
  Over the years, taxation has gone up and down. Representation has gone up and down (universal suffrage, countered by gerrymandering and voter suppression). I don't see a relationship.

megablast 5y ago

As a proud owner of a pair of pants, what are you so proud about?? You went and bought a gun??

betwixthewires 5y ago
As mentioned elsewhere, the pride usually stems from self reliance.
- amelius 5y ago
  If you want self-reliance, then get a medical degree. This will bring you further than owning a gun, especially in the US.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Don't be ridiculous.

onemiketwelve 5y ago

Let me start off by saying I love playing with guns, and really frankly anything gun related. I don't know why it is but I've just been fascinated with them since I was a kid. Ok that said, I don't understand how guns protect us from the government. I think the biggest threats area slow and mundane. Ie erosion of rights or increasing power of some portion of the government over decades. There's no one cataclysmic event that overnight would make sane people take up arms and start popping off. Likewise, let's say the government went all evil-like. Like in a movie. And you somehow got a huge citizen resistance trying to fight the government forces, unlike in real life where apparently the country would be split and half would join the government forces. The government has armor, air support, artillery, surveillance, and logistics. This isn't the 1700s. Just access to small arms is meaningless unless the 2nd amendment is broadened to include all weapons. And even then, machine guns, manpads, tanks and heat are just tools and a tiny, inconsequential part of warfare. You always see gun people plinking away at stationary targets. Arguing about mlok vs picatinny. Maybe practicing their tacticool speed reloads. You rarely see people practicing force on force cqb, urban fighting, how to fight as a team.

tommymachine 5y ago
Access to small arms has proven anything but meaningless for the Taliban.
evilos 5y ago
IMO citizens being well armed is deterrence. It makes the likelihood of 'evil martial law' government less likely by increasing the perceived cost. If you truly disarmed the entire country (something I consider basically impossible), it makes a military coup/governance much more feasible. One of the main lessons of modern history is that insurgencies are incredibly cost effective ways to fight a stronger opponent. You basically have to be willing to commit terrible crimes against humanity to overcome them. Of course this is all theorizing. I don't America is in danger of that sort of civil war just yet.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  The moment anybody tried to organise armed resistance to the government, they would instantly be declared “terrorists” and taken out by legal means or by force. The US government agencies have such information supremacy that it is nearly impossible for any armed groups to organise without the government knowing about it.

mbrodersen 5y ago

USA ranks 25 according to this: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020# https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020# So yes better than 50% but not great.