4 ms·

And yet people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that com

And yet people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that complain about police abusing their powers and vulnerable groups of people.

mitt_romney_12 3y ago
A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you
- dcow 3y ago
  You might be surprised how much a group of armed citizens can do against a police squad. I don't think “you’ll never protect yourself from the gov’t” is an accurate angle.
  - watwut 3y ago
    They can't do nothing and if they try, they will go to prison forever.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      In the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.
      - watwut 3y ago
        Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning. In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up. Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        The gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico. If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.
        watwut 3y ago
        > If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment. That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.
        baremetal 3y ago
        Tell that to the Mexican government.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        Revolutions have succeeded in the past. It is an unlikely outcome but possible. My original point was that there is utility in having an armed populace because it requires government agents to evaluate the risk of infringing actions more heavily. Even if the citizens lose, nobody wants to be a casualty in they're resistance.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time. It succeeds plenty. The list of successful coups by paramilitary groups is loooooong. Hell, the Nazis started essentially as a gang.
        watwut 3y ago
        They did not won the way OP suggests.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Temporarily. In the long run? Nah. Eventually the APCs roll in.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - baremetal 3y ago
      In the long run they will run out of jackboots willing to risk not coming home to their families at the end of the day.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Not unless "group of armed citizens" refers to a large-scale rebellion or civil war, no.
        baremetal 3y ago
        Correct, a single individual or small group would get clobbered.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    How are your guns going to help you when the police helicopters drop incendiary bombs on your house (or compound) at 3AM?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    When has this actually happened? I think you'd find only very rare exceptions. It's a fantasy. And it's destructive for the community to replace rule of law with rule of whoever-has-more-guns.
- moretrashplz 3y ago
  [flagged]
- rascul 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
  - test098 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile
  - kthejoker2 3y ago
    Lol the Bundys only "survived" because 80% of the cops out there are on their side. Give me a break, them having guns in no way prevented LE from doing what they wanted.
giraffe_lady 3y ago
And in the most egregious cases of police violence, the people who value their right to own & carry weapons are a strong base of police support. There is actually nothing contradictory about either set of positions though. Guns don't protect you from cops. Guns are power and violence, and who we consider to have rightful access to it. So are police.
- moretrashplz 3y ago
  An armed citizenry has acted as a deterrent to tyrannical governments and nation states for as long as the two have co-existed. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. And no, "we" don't get to consider who has lawful or rightful access to firearms - unless you got to vote for the last class of police cadets at your local precinct.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    That something has often been true in the past doesn't mean it always will be. These are trends not natural laws. There is a clear development for at least 20 years in the US of more policing, more police surveillance, more sense of a right or prerogative of police to make their own decisions about violence without oversight or consequence. These changes are for the most part supported by the people who self-identify as enthusiastic gun owners, or people who value their right to own and carry guns. I don't want to try to guess what constraints you may have on the definition of tyrannical here, but this confluence of forces is a negative for the material expression of rights. What you can do on paper isn't very important when someone can shoot you for doing it and get away with that. That someone may be a cop in some cirumstances and they may be a lawful gun owner in others. This makes them natural allies in many political contexts because of that simple fact.
whoknew1122 3y ago
If you think that the left and marginalized groups don't also have firearms, I think you'd be rather surprised. Check out the John Brown Gun Club, for example. You can be for sensible gun control and still have firearms as a pragmatic measure.
- moretrashplz 3y ago
  Where did I say any of that? I simply stated that many of the people who would like to restrict private citizens' access to firearms are the same people who complain about the brutalization of vulnerable groups by police. I never said it was a rule nor that exceptions did not exist. Without defining sensible gun control and pragmatic measures, I'm not sure that statement is agreeable.

mitt_romney_12 3y ago

A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you

dcow 3y ago
You might be surprised how much a group of armed citizens can do against a police squad. I don't think “you’ll never protect yourself from the gov’t” is an accurate angle.
- watwut 3y ago
  They can't do nothing and if they try, they will go to prison forever.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    In the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.
    - watwut 3y ago
      Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning. In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up. Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        The gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico. If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.
        watwut 3y ago
        > If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment. That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.
        baremetal 3y ago
        Tell that to the Mexican government.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        Revolutions have succeeded in the past. It is an unlikely outcome but possible. My original point was that there is utility in having an armed populace because it requires government agents to evaluate the risk of infringing actions more heavily. Even if the citizens lose, nobody wants to be a casualty in they're resistance.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time. It succeeds plenty. The list of successful coups by paramilitary groups is loooooong. Hell, the Nazis started essentially as a gang.
        watwut 3y ago
        They did not won the way OP suggests.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Temporarily. In the long run? Nah. Eventually the APCs roll in.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - baremetal 3y ago
    In the long run they will run out of jackboots willing to risk not coming home to their families at the end of the day.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Not unless "group of armed citizens" refers to a large-scale rebellion or civil war, no.
      - baremetal 3y ago
        Correct, a single individual or small group would get clobbered.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  How are your guns going to help you when the police helicopters drop incendiary bombs on your house (or compound) at 3AM?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  When has this actually happened? I think you'd find only very rare exceptions. It's a fantasy. And it's destructive for the community to replace rule of law with rule of whoever-has-more-guns.
moretrashplz 3y ago
[flagged]
rascul 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
- test098 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile
- kthejoker2 3y ago
  Lol the Bundys only "survived" because 80% of the cops out there are on their side. Give me a break, them having guns in no way prevented LE from doing what they wanted.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

And in the most egregious cases of police violence, the people who value their right to own & carry weapons are a strong base of police support. There is actually nothing contradictory about either set of positions though. Guns don't protect you from cops. Guns are power and violence, and who we consider to have rightful access to it. So are police.

moretrashplz 3y ago
An armed citizenry has acted as a deterrent to tyrannical governments and nation states for as long as the two have co-existed. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. And no, "we" don't get to consider who has lawful or rightful access to firearms - unless you got to vote for the last class of police cadets at your local precinct.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  That something has often been true in the past doesn't mean it always will be. These are trends not natural laws. There is a clear development for at least 20 years in the US of more policing, more police surveillance, more sense of a right or prerogative of police to make their own decisions about violence without oversight or consequence. These changes are for the most part supported by the people who self-identify as enthusiastic gun owners, or people who value their right to own and carry guns. I don't want to try to guess what constraints you may have on the definition of tyrannical here, but this confluence of forces is a negative for the material expression of rights. What you can do on paper isn't very important when someone can shoot you for doing it and get away with that. That someone may be a cop in some cirumstances and they may be a lawful gun owner in others. This makes them natural allies in many political contexts because of that simple fact.

whoknew1122 3y ago

If you think that the left and marginalized groups don't also have firearms, I think you'd be rather surprised. Check out the John Brown Gun Club, for example. You can be for sensible gun control and still have firearms as a pragmatic measure.

moretrashplz 3y ago
Where did I say any of that? I simply stated that many of the people who would like to restrict private citizens' access to firearms are the same people who complain about the brutalization of vulnerable groups by police. I never said it was a rule nor that exceptions did not exist. Without defining sensible gun control and pragmatic measures, I'm not sure that statement is agreeable.