6 ms·

I do not at all accept that guns empower the weak. We can see all over the world they are a massive force multiplier for criminals, the violent and the murderou

by simonh 5y ago

I do not at all accept that guns empower the weak. We can see all over the world they are a massive force multiplier for criminals, the violent and the murderous. Guns are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to use violence. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to kill, and most enthusiastic about preparing to do so. There is nothing admirable about normalising and promoting lethal violence in society. I’m very much aware of the sentiment that guns can have beneficial social effects, epitomised by the Heinlein quote that an armed society is a polite society. This is absurd. That sentiment is a direct attack on the principle of free speech, open discourse and equal right of expression for citizens. We should aspire to toleration of free expression, even if it’s uncomfortable or offensive, not suppression of it. Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to the violent? Utterly shameful.

bequanna 5y ago
> It hands an implicit veto on opinion to the violent. Utterly shameful. Except that isn’t how it has worked in the US at all. Can weapons be used to intimidate and coerce? Of course. But we’re civilized. We have freedoms and we are protected from unlawful force by lawful force. Speech is virtual limitless. Non violent protest has and will continue to be a fruitful avenue of change. Self reliance and individual empowerment are the core values of the United States. I can’t think of many things more important than being able to protect my family and my property.
- simonh 5y ago
  My comment is not limited to political discourse. The rates of firearm use in domestic and personal disputes in the US are a disgrace. Half of women killed in domestic disputes are shot. But even then, it only shows those cases where guns were actually used. We can only guess how often the threat of such violence, either explicit or implicit is enough to coerce or intimidate. The attitude that the correct way to fix this is for women to also become killers is frankly vile. Promoting willingness to kill as a path to a voice or Liberty in personal relationships or society is utterly immoral. That is not the kind of society we should be aspiring to build.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    > Promoting willingness to kill as a path to a voice or Liberty in personal relationships or society is utterly immoral. That is not the kind of society we should be aspiring to build. Statements like this remind me how lucky we are to have created such a safe space for people to be born, raised, and live so that they can maintain this view. You’re lucky and hopefully people like you can help us build a better society. Some of us weren’t so lucky. We experienced violence, we went to war, we have actually seen the chaos and terror that people can cause. I am here to tell you that terrible, malevolent people exist. They don’t care about hurting other people. Now, you don’t need to spend every waking hour worrying about them, but don’t pretend that they aren’t there and a real danger to you either. So, please stop trying to take away the right of an individual to protect themselves because of some hand waving about criminals with guns.
    - simonh 5y ago
      This is why we have armies and police forces.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  I have lived in developed and developing countries and have never felt that my family or property were at risk. The real question is why you think they are when we live in the safest time in human history.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    I have lived in developed and developing countries and have never felt that my family or property were at risk. "I have also failed to read or retain even a bit of 20th Century history."
    - wittycardio 5y ago
      Yes I'm sure the 20th century would have been much more peaceful with guns in everyone's hand. You sir have solved all political problems , just give everyone guns !
  - bequanna 5y ago
    That’s great! This whole civilization thing is working pretty well. Just because you haven’t personally encountered violence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
    - wittycardio 5y ago
      Yes exactly I'm trying to continue living in a world without violence, the way to do that is to reduce easy access to guns.
qball 5y ago
>Speech are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to say destabilizing things. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to do this, and most enthusiastic about preparing to do so. It's really not that different; speech, much like guns, is capable of bringing an entire nation to its knees and setting neighbor against neighbor (every Western country is a blatant example of this, for obvious and recent reasons), to say nothing about its general life-ruining applications. Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to those that speak? >Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to the violent? Is it really right for the [pick your favorite minority] to do violence to the [member of society that is coming to do some nasty thing to them]? And if so, at what point does that change? Is it when they're about to seize your children and make sure any culture you gave them is beaten out of them? Is it they're about to bulldoze your ancient burial grounds to make room for a new golf course? Is it when the Grain Commissioner takes the food you needed to survive? Is it when your neighbors have come to kill you for wearing glasses, or [insert your favorite characteristic here]? How about just levying usurious taxes for the same crime, or enforcing the law unevenly against them, or a state-sanctioned "just let these two groups fight it out since we hate both of them anyway"? (and the list goes on) Once you take that implicit veto away, these abuses happen (of course, society has investigated itself and found that it has done nothing wrong). It's not a bulletproof defense, of course, and it's certainly less likely to work unless properly coordinated, but it doesn't hurt your chances. And unless you think society should get away with everything just because it's society (which is the majority view, so nobody will hold you accountable for it)...
- simonh 5y ago
  Free speech is not oppression. The US is a free democracy. Nobody is coming to seize your children and beat their culture out of them. Even if they were, or planned to bulldoze your cemetery, the US has a very well trained, staffed and equipped paramilitary police system and full on militarised domestic National Guard. Largely because they are policing such a gunned up population. So thanks for that. If they are coming for your children, a few light arms are not going to stop them, and they have a huge amount of practical experience in making sure that’s true. Widespread access to firearms simply escalates conflict in society. It escalates personal disputes, escalates interactions with law enforcement, escalates disparities in power between the violent and nonviolent. Many developed nations, in fact almost all of them, have very low gun ownership rates, yet these abuses you seem to think would be inevitable have not happened in them. It turns out liberal democracy (liberal as in free and equal, not as in socialist) is pretty robust as long as it has solid support by the population. The best way to maintain that trust is the ability to exercise your rights and express your opinions without fear.
lr4444lr 5y ago
Reading what you say, one would conclude that countries with restrictive gun laws do not oppress minority groups in any way, nor have they ever.
- simonh 5y ago
  I don’t think gun laws make any significant difference to whether that’s likely to happen or not. Having the official recognised right to bear arms hasn’t done any oppressed minority groups in the US or anywhere else I can think of much good.
hcurtiss 5y ago
But literally nobody is proposing removing all guns from a society. Rather, even the most aggressive proposals merely confine them to government actors, usually a standing army. Confining guns to government actors means lethal violence is monopolized by the government. And there are many, many examples of how terribly that can go. Yes, if we could eliminate humanity’s ability to inflict lethal violence, the world would be a better place. We cannot do that because we’re humans.

by simonh 5y ago

bequanna 5y ago

> It hands an implicit veto on opinion to the violent. Utterly shameful. Except that isn’t how it has worked in the US at all. Can weapons be used to intimidate and coerce? Of course. But we’re civilized. We have freedoms and we are protected from unlawful force by lawful force. Speech is virtual limitless. Non violent protest has and will continue to be a fruitful avenue of change. Self reliance and individual empowerment are the core values of the United States. I can’t think of many things more important than being able to protect my family and my property.

simonh 5y ago
My comment is not limited to political discourse. The rates of firearm use in domestic and personal disputes in the US are a disgrace. Half of women killed in domestic disputes are shot. But even then, it only shows those cases where guns were actually used. We can only guess how often the threat of such violence, either explicit or implicit is enough to coerce or intimidate. The attitude that the correct way to fix this is for women to also become killers is frankly vile. Promoting willingness to kill as a path to a voice or Liberty in personal relationships or society is utterly immoral. That is not the kind of society we should be aspiring to build.
- bequanna 5y ago
  > Promoting willingness to kill as a path to a voice or Liberty in personal relationships or society is utterly immoral. That is not the kind of society we should be aspiring to build. Statements like this remind me how lucky we are to have created such a safe space for people to be born, raised, and live so that they can maintain this view. You’re lucky and hopefully people like you can help us build a better society. Some of us weren’t so lucky. We experienced violence, we went to war, we have actually seen the chaos and terror that people can cause. I am here to tell you that terrible, malevolent people exist. They don’t care about hurting other people. Now, you don’t need to spend every waking hour worrying about them, but don’t pretend that they aren’t there and a real danger to you either. So, please stop trying to take away the right of an individual to protect themselves because of some hand waving about criminals with guns.
  - simonh 5y ago
    This is why we have armies and police forces.
wittycardio 5y ago
I have lived in developed and developing countries and have never felt that my family or property were at risk. The real question is why you think they are when we live in the safest time in human history.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  I have lived in developed and developing countries and have never felt that my family or property were at risk. "I have also failed to read or retain even a bit of 20th Century history."
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    Yes I'm sure the 20th century would have been much more peaceful with guns in everyone's hand. You sir have solved all political problems , just give everyone guns !
- bequanna 5y ago
  That’s great! This whole civilization thing is working pretty well. Just because you haven’t personally encountered violence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    Yes exactly I'm trying to continue living in a world without violence, the way to do that is to reduce easy access to guns.

qball 5y ago

>Speech are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to say destabilizing things. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to do this, and most enthusiastic about preparing to do so. It's really not that different; speech, much like guns, is capable of bringing an entire nation to its knees and setting neighbor against neighbor (every Western country is a blatant example of this, for obvious and recent reasons), to say nothing about its general life-ruining applications. Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to those that speak? >Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to the violent? Is it really right for the [pick your favorite minority] to do violence to the [member of society that is coming to do some nasty thing to them]? And if so, at what point does that change? Is it when they're about to seize your children and make sure any culture you gave them is beaten out of them? Is it they're about to bulldoze your ancient burial grounds to make room for a new golf course? Is it when the Grain Commissioner takes the food you needed to survive? Is it when your neighbors have come to kill you for wearing glasses, or [insert your favorite characteristic here]? How about just levying usurious taxes for the same crime, or enforcing the law unevenly against them, or a state-sanctioned "just let these two groups fight it out since we hate both of them anyway"? (and the list goes on) Once you take that implicit veto away, these abuses happen (of course, society has investigated itself and found that it has done nothing wrong). It's not a bulletproof defense, of course, and it's certainly less likely to work unless properly coordinated, but it doesn't hurt your chances. And unless you think society should get away with everything just because it's society (which is the majority view, so nobody will hold you accountable for it)...

simonh 5y ago
Free speech is not oppression. The US is a free democracy. Nobody is coming to seize your children and beat their culture out of them. Even if they were, or planned to bulldoze your cemetery, the US has a very well trained, staffed and equipped paramilitary police system and full on militarised domestic National Guard. Largely because they are policing such a gunned up population. So thanks for that. If they are coming for your children, a few light arms are not going to stop them, and they have a huge amount of practical experience in making sure that’s true. Widespread access to firearms simply escalates conflict in society. It escalates personal disputes, escalates interactions with law enforcement, escalates disparities in power between the violent and nonviolent. Many developed nations, in fact almost all of them, have very low gun ownership rates, yet these abuses you seem to think would be inevitable have not happened in them. It turns out liberal democracy (liberal as in free and equal, not as in socialist) is pretty robust as long as it has solid support by the population. The best way to maintain that trust is the ability to exercise your rights and express your opinions without fear.

lr4444lr 5y ago

Reading what you say, one would conclude that countries with restrictive gun laws do not oppress minority groups in any way, nor have they ever.

simonh 5y ago
I don’t think gun laws make any significant difference to whether that’s likely to happen or not. Having the official recognised right to bear arms hasn’t done any oppressed minority groups in the US or anywhere else I can think of much good.

hcurtiss 5y ago

But literally nobody is proposing removing all guns from a society. Rather, even the most aggressive proposals merely confine them to government actors, usually a standing army. Confining guns to government actors means lethal violence is monopolized by the government. And there are many, many examples of how terribly that can go. Yes, if we could eliminate humanity’s ability to inflict lethal violence, the world would be a better place. We cannot do that because we’re humans.