4 ms·

I’m not a 2nd Amendment zealot in any way but an armed population is, among many many other (mostly bad) things, a real counterweight to government overreach.

blibble 3y ago
would a firearm have helped this man?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mobiuscog 3y ago
An armed population would not improve the UK government in any way. I would even suggest that despite the USA having guns, their government is just as bad. I'm not sure that plans to develop a new airport runway would be 'stopped' by civilians turning up armed.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The US obviously has much, much, much stronger free speech protections. The extent to which that’s preserved by threat of an armed populace seems pretty tricky to figure out. I agree I wouldn’t propose arming the UK public as a solution here.
  - munksbeer 3y ago
    > The US obviously has much, much, much stronger free speech protections. Does it? I don't know enough about the subject to say one way or another.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      People are frequently jailed in the UK for saying mean things on the Internet. This does not happen in the US. Even cases of people making specific threats against government officials are incredibly hard to act on.
      - munksbeer 3y ago
        > People are frequently jailed in the UK for saying mean things on the Internet. I'm not sure that's true.
hef19898 3y ago
There is zero evidence an armed polulation does achieve that goal. It is a nice narrative so.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
That's ridiculous, or scary. Are you one of those people who would shoot the police if they came to your door to enforce the law? I can't think of any lawful way a gun can help you with dealing with a disagreement with the government.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I can't think of any lawful way a gun can help you with dealing with a disagreement with the government. No rebellion is lawful. The American Revolution was highly illegal and the American Founders were traitors to the British crown. Even the possibility of one puts a check on government overreach. For an extreme example, a government is probably not going to routinely shoot protestors if they will start getting return fire (though they can probably get away with it once or twice before retaliation starts).
- ethanbond 3y ago
  > Are you one of those people who would shoot the police if they came to your door to enforce the law? I suppose it depends on the law, doesn’t it? If you can’t imagine a law that would justify such a response, you’re lacking both in imagination and historical knowledge. But no, as far as the meme version of an anti-government hick, or whatever you have in your head now, no I am not one of them. My comment history will reveal that I’m generally very pro-government (the secular, western, liberal democratic versions at least).
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    > you’re lacking both in imagination and historical knowledge. Apparently, but the real problem is you don't actually give us an example, then I wouldn't need those elusive skills. It's hard to get to the point without something concrete. Besides the moral question of killing someone doing their job due to an unjust law, there are the practical matters. If you kill one person, there are others who do the same job. Governments hire thousands of people. There is the question of subjectivity. If you think that's justifiable, what about if you're delusional or just wrong? Once you cross that moral line you're killing people just because you think But maybe you're talking about the government coming to kill you and acting in self defence. This definitely happens, but it has practical issues. We've seen black people more or less executed by police more than once. Should black people shoot police defensively? At what point do they know it's justified? What if they're just scared and over-reacting? Maybe you're talking about something broader, then that's armed rebellion, or civil war. That may be justified, and doesn't have the subjectivity so much, but then you're up against an enemy that is well armed. How are you going to get your hands on jets, tanks and nukes? Maybe you don't present an example because you don't have one. You then just have an amorphous concept that sounds good in theory but makes no sense. Thus my comments and the danger of actually being one of those people you mention.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Not sure there is much evidence for that historically.
- Mashimo 3y ago
  wounded knee 1973 and .. mhh .. "the troubles" maybe? Also not sure if it "counts" if they got the weapons from other means. I think IRA got tons of weapons from Gaddafi. Which would make it a counter points as you can resist even with stronger weapons laws?
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    What exactly do you think the IRA achieved?
NietTim 3y ago
The second you'd take up arms against the government you'd be labeled a terrorist and taken out with a drone. Being a counterweight against the government only works if you have the same arms as the government.
- Mashimo 3y ago
  > Being a counterweight against the government only works if you have the same arms as the government. I'm all for relative strict weapon and gun laws, but I think ^ this might be false. IRA ~troubles~, Myanmar / Burma, French Indochina War maybe?, Cuban Revolution, Wounded Knee 73 all got results while being undergunned. Burma still pending.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Afghanistan is an empirical disproof of this claim. I used to believe it too though!

blibble 3y ago

would a firearm have helped this man?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mobiuscog 3y ago

An armed population would not improve the UK government in any way. I would even suggest that despite the USA having guns, their government is just as bad. I'm not sure that plans to develop a new airport runway would be 'stopped' by civilians turning up armed.

ethanbond 3y ago
The US obviously has much, much, much stronger free speech protections. The extent to which that’s preserved by threat of an armed populace seems pretty tricky to figure out. I agree I wouldn’t propose arming the UK public as a solution here.
- munksbeer 3y ago
  > The US obviously has much, much, much stronger free speech protections. Does it? I don't know enough about the subject to say one way or another.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    People are frequently jailed in the UK for saying mean things on the Internet. This does not happen in the US. Even cases of people making specific threats against government officials are incredibly hard to act on.
    - munksbeer 3y ago
      > People are frequently jailed in the UK for saying mean things on the Internet. I'm not sure that's true.

hef19898 3y ago

There is zero evidence an armed polulation does achieve that goal. It is a nice narrative so.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

That's ridiculous, or scary. Are you one of those people who would shoot the police if they came to your door to enforce the law? I can't think of any lawful way a gun can help you with dealing with a disagreement with the government.

tivert 3y ago
> I can't think of any lawful way a gun can help you with dealing with a disagreement with the government. No rebellion is lawful. The American Revolution was highly illegal and the American Founders were traitors to the British crown. Even the possibility of one puts a check on government overreach. For an extreme example, a government is probably not going to routinely shoot protestors if they will start getting return fire (though they can probably get away with it once or twice before retaliation starts).
ethanbond 3y ago
> Are you one of those people who would shoot the police if they came to your door to enforce the law? I suppose it depends on the law, doesn’t it? If you can’t imagine a law that would justify such a response, you’re lacking both in imagination and historical knowledge. But no, as far as the meme version of an anti-government hick, or whatever you have in your head now, no I am not one of them. My comment history will reveal that I’m generally very pro-government (the secular, western, liberal democratic versions at least).
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  > you’re lacking both in imagination and historical knowledge. Apparently, but the real problem is you don't actually give us an example, then I wouldn't need those elusive skills. It's hard to get to the point without something concrete. Besides the moral question of killing someone doing their job due to an unjust law, there are the practical matters. If you kill one person, there are others who do the same job. Governments hire thousands of people. There is the question of subjectivity. If you think that's justifiable, what about if you're delusional or just wrong? Once you cross that moral line you're killing people just because you think But maybe you're talking about the government coming to kill you and acting in self defence. This definitely happens, but it has practical issues. We've seen black people more or less executed by police more than once. Should black people shoot police defensively? At what point do they know it's justified? What if they're just scared and over-reacting? Maybe you're talking about something broader, then that's armed rebellion, or civil war. That may be justified, and doesn't have the subjectivity so much, but then you're up against an enemy that is well armed. How are you going to get your hands on jets, tanks and nukes? Maybe you don't present an example because you don't have one. You then just have an amorphous concept that sounds good in theory but makes no sense. Thus my comments and the danger of actually being one of those people you mention.

RandomLensman 3y ago

Not sure there is much evidence for that historically.

Mashimo 3y ago
wounded knee 1973 and .. mhh .. "the troubles" maybe? Also not sure if it "counts" if they got the weapons from other means. I think IRA got tons of weapons from Gaddafi. Which would make it a counter points as you can resist even with stronger weapons laws?
- NikkiA 3y ago
  What exactly do you think the IRA achieved?

NietTim 3y ago

The second you'd take up arms against the government you'd be labeled a terrorist and taken out with a drone. Being a counterweight against the government only works if you have the same arms as the government.

Mashimo 3y ago
> Being a counterweight against the government only works if you have the same arms as the government. I'm all for relative strict weapon and gun laws, but I think ^ this might be false. IRA ~troubles~, Myanmar / Burma, French Indochina War maybe?, Cuban Revolution, Wounded Knee 73 all got results while being undergunned. Burma still pending.
ethanbond 3y ago
Afghanistan is an empirical disproof of this claim. I used to believe it too though!