4 ms·

> The right to bear arms in the USA is often most appreciated by citizens of foreign lands where life is lived on the precipice between democracy and tyranny.

> The right to bear arms in the USA is often most appreciated by citizens of foreign lands where life is lived on the precipice between democracy and tyranny. It's very dramatic to say, but do you have evidence of that? It sounds like a fantasy of the American gun rights crowd (like most of this discussion). > Gun deaths and mass shootings are horrible but the solution is not to abolish the 2nd amendment. Is that the only way to regulate guns, to recind the amendemnt?

anonu 3y ago
I would say there are a few events in history and in the geopolitical world that support my claim. The first is the recent spike in gun ownership in Israel following the Hamas attacks [1]. Similarly, you have militias such as Hezbollah who have refused to lay down their weapons post the civil war conflict and have retained a disproportionate amount of power over the citizens of Lebanon. In one example, they have built their own telecom network which, when the state attempted to remove it, Hezbollah fought back by terrorizing the population [2]. In the first case, you see the population seeking to arm themselves to bring the balance of power back inline. In the second case you see the balance of power already tilted towards an armed group. I am not saying guns are the solution. But they are a deterrent. An aggressor will think twice before attacking. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/middleeast/israel-gun-ownership-spikes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/middleeast/israel-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Lebanon_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Lebanon_conflict
- pvg 3y ago
  That's a pair of events that are not about the 'precipice between democracy and tyranny'. The argument is a trope of US gun rights advocates but it's not really based on much beyond frequent repetition. I don't mean this as some sort of opening for a gun policy debate, just that this particular thing is largely a slogan, not some meaningful historical pattern. One of its forms has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument
RagnarD 3y ago
Wow. Try studying all of human history, especially the past century. There's many thousands of books, as a starter. Look at the history of disarmament and why it's done by tyrannies. Do you imagine for one nanosecond that North Koreans outside of the government own guns, to take one solid example?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  All the most free, prosperous, and safe countries in the world have many fewer guns, and gun rights, than the US. The US is the outlier, and it's even the outlier now for its own history. The US in 2023 is the outlier in time and place.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Inconveniently, a lot of those places had all citizens turn over their guns to occupying forces between 1939–1946…
    - thejefflarson 3y ago
      And that turned out really well. I’m unclear what your point is.
- jimnotgym 3y ago
  That doesn't seem like a solid example at all. North Korea was quite capable of running a dictatorship since circa 1948. It seems from a quick read around that they brought in gun controls in 2009. It sounds to me that it is perfectly possible to oppress a country with or without gin control.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Wow. Try studying all of human history, especially the past century. This has been done: surveying ~600 movements since 1900, researchers found those that used violence were successful about 25% of the time, while non-violent movements were successful over 40% of the time: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resistance-works https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resis... Further: movements that used violence, and happened to be successful, also were much more likely to become authoritative themselves, while non-violent movements were more likely to be non-authoritative. The recent historical record shows that you're better off not using guns, the exact opposite of your claim.
slowhand09 3y ago
There are an estimated 20,000 gun laws in the USA. Do you not consider that regulation? Why are noise mitigation devices regulated, often taking a full year to be approved? These are known as suppressors (silencers on TV and movies).

anonu 3y ago

I would say there are a few events in history and in the geopolitical world that support my claim. The first is the recent spike in gun ownership in Israel following the Hamas attacks [1]. Similarly, you have militias such as Hezbollah who have refused to lay down their weapons post the civil war conflict and have retained a disproportionate amount of power over the citizens of Lebanon. In one example, they have built their own telecom network which, when the state attempted to remove it, Hezbollah fought back by terrorizing the population [2]. In the first case, you see the population seeking to arm themselves to bring the balance of power back inline. In the second case you see the balance of power already tilted towards an armed group. I am not saying guns are the solution. But they are a deterrent. An aggressor will think twice before attacking. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/middleeast/israel-gun-ownership-spikes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/middleeast/israel-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Lebanon_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Lebanon_conflict

pvg 3y ago
That's a pair of events that are not about the 'precipice between democracy and tyranny'. The argument is a trope of US gun rights advocates but it's not really based on much beyond frequent repetition. I don't mean this as some sort of opening for a gun policy debate, just that this particular thing is largely a slogan, not some meaningful historical pattern. One of its forms has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

RagnarD 3y ago

Wow. Try studying all of human history, especially the past century. There's many thousands of books, as a starter. Look at the history of disarmament and why it's done by tyrannies. Do you imagine for one nanosecond that North Koreans outside of the government own guns, to take one solid example?

wolverine876 3y ago
All the most free, prosperous, and safe countries in the world have many fewer guns, and gun rights, than the US. The US is the outlier, and it's even the outlier now for its own history. The US in 2023 is the outlier in time and place.
- junofan 3y ago
  Inconveniently, a lot of those places had all citizens turn over their guns to occupying forces between 1939–1946…
  - thejefflarson 3y ago
    And that turned out really well. I’m unclear what your point is.
jimnotgym 3y ago
That doesn't seem like a solid example at all. North Korea was quite capable of running a dictatorship since circa 1948. It seems from a quick read around that they brought in gun controls in 2009. It sounds to me that it is perfectly possible to oppress a country with or without gin control.
throw0101b 3y ago
> Wow. Try studying all of human history, especially the past century. This has been done: surveying ~600 movements since 1900, researchers found those that used violence were successful about 25% of the time, while non-violent movements were successful over 40% of the time: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resistance-works https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resis... Further: movements that used violence, and happened to be successful, also were much more likely to become authoritative themselves, while non-violent movements were more likely to be non-authoritative. The recent historical record shows that you're better off not using guns, the exact opposite of your claim.

slowhand09 3y ago

There are an estimated 20,000 gun laws in the USA. Do you not consider that regulation? Why are noise mitigation devices regulated, often taking a full year to be approved? These are known as suppressors (silencers on TV and movies).