5 ms·

> only industrial nation in which the possession of rifles, shotguns, and handguns is lawfully prevalent among large numbers of its population The U.S. may hav

> only industrial nation in which the possession of rifles, shotguns, and handguns is lawfully prevalent among large numbers of its population The U.S. may have many guns per capita but countries like France, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, etc. all have huge percentage of gun owners. And let's not forget this: "It (guns) insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed."

krapp 2y ago
>The U.S. may have many guns per capita but countries like France, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, etc. all have huge percentage of gun owners. They also regulate and restrict guns to a degree that would be impossible in the US. And have cultures with social cohesion where rights are understood to confer responsibilities - again, impossible in the US. >"It (guns) insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed." They do no such thing. The American government has shown absolutely no compunction whatsoever about putting the boot to their citizens heads whenever it likes, be it through illegal domestic surveillance, plutocracy, experimentation on its own citizens, endless unpopular wars, unjust incarceration or a militarized police force that all but robs them openly and hunts them for sport. Indeed, recent history even demonstrates that many American gun owners will welcome authoritarianism with open arms (pun intended) so long as the boot doesn't come down on them. Guns are not a substitute for a well informed, engaged populace, and the fantasy that guns equal liberty is poisonous to society. The government fears a well informed, engaged populace. It does not give one single rat fuck about the pistol you keep under your pillow.
48864w6ui 2y ago
Not sure about that last para in the age of explosive drones.
- JoeyBananas 2y ago
  What's your point? There are people who engage in private drone ownership more or less for the same reasons commonly put forth for private gun ownership.
  - brokenmachine 2y ago
    No there aren't. They would also need grenades and RPG warheads, which aren't readily available.
  - 48864w6ui 2y ago
    If explosive drones became legal for militae less well regulated than the National Guard I'd expect school "shootings" could be exciting indeed.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  I can only guess which sort of drones you have in mind, but from my view, the routine use of cheap, hobbyist-level FPV racing drones to disable tanks in the Ukraine/Russia war rather supports the idea presented in that paragraph.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    Kinda doubtful "hobbyist-level FPV racing drones" can reliably disable tanks..
    - marssaxman 2y ago
      "In an interview with Foreign Policy, a NATO official said that Ukrainian first-person-view drones, known commonly as FPV drones, were responsible for two-thirds of recent Russian tank losses." https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drones-russia-tank-losses-reflects-shortages-artillery-report-2024-4?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drones-russia-tank-l...
      - riku_iki 2y ago
        The premise of the article is that Ukraine is not being able to disable tanks using conventional ways anymore because of lack of artillery shells. Also, "NATO official" tells nothing about quality of this report, it could be some clerks opinion.
        marssaxman 2y ago
        I did read the article, yes, and I'm not sure what your point is. The existence of better weapons, which the Ukrainians cannot afford, changes nothing about the fact that cheap drones are effective anti-tank weapons, as ISIS first demonstrated ten years ago. Doubt the unnamed NATO official all you like, there are hundreds of videos on YouTube showing how the Ukrainian army uses drones against tanks; it is completely routine.
        2y ago

krapp 2y ago

>The U.S. may have many guns per capita but countries like France, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, etc. all have huge percentage of gun owners. They also regulate and restrict guns to a degree that would be impossible in the US. And have cultures with social cohesion where rights are understood to confer responsibilities - again, impossible in the US. >"It (guns) insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed." They do no such thing. The American government has shown absolutely no compunction whatsoever about putting the boot to their citizens heads whenever it likes, be it through illegal domestic surveillance, plutocracy, experimentation on its own citizens, endless unpopular wars, unjust incarceration or a militarized police force that all but robs them openly and hunts them for sport. Indeed, recent history even demonstrates that many American gun owners will welcome authoritarianism with open arms (pun intended) so long as the boot doesn't come down on them. Guns are not a substitute for a well informed, engaged populace, and the fantasy that guns equal liberty is poisonous to society. The government fears a well informed, engaged populace. It does not give one single rat fuck about the pistol you keep under your pillow.

48864w6ui 2y ago

Not sure about that last para in the age of explosive drones.

JoeyBananas 2y ago
What's your point? There are people who engage in private drone ownership more or less for the same reasons commonly put forth for private gun ownership.
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  No there aren't. They would also need grenades and RPG warheads, which aren't readily available.
- 48864w6ui 2y ago
  If explosive drones became legal for militae less well regulated than the National Guard I'd expect school "shootings" could be exciting indeed.
marssaxman 2y ago
I can only guess which sort of drones you have in mind, but from my view, the routine use of cheap, hobbyist-level FPV racing drones to disable tanks in the Ukraine/Russia war rather supports the idea presented in that paragraph.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  Kinda doubtful "hobbyist-level FPV racing drones" can reliably disable tanks..
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    "In an interview with Foreign Policy, a NATO official said that Ukrainian first-person-view drones, known commonly as FPV drones, were responsible for two-thirds of recent Russian tank losses." https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drones-russia-tank-losses-reflects-shortages-artillery-report-2024-4?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-drones-russia-tank-l...
    - riku_iki 2y ago
      The premise of the article is that Ukraine is not being able to disable tanks using conventional ways anymore because of lack of artillery shells. Also, "NATO official" tells nothing about quality of this report, it could be some clerks opinion.
      - marssaxman 2y ago
        I did read the article, yes, and I'm not sure what your point is. The existence of better weapons, which the Ukrainians cannot afford, changes nothing about the fact that cheap drones are effective anti-tank weapons, as ISIS first demonstrated ten years ago. Doubt the unnamed NATO official all you like, there are hundreds of videos on YouTube showing how the Ukrainian army uses drones against tanks; it is completely routine.
        2y ago