6 ms·
> every country should have nukes if they want to be safe This seems analogous to the idea that every household should have guns if they want to be safe.
by normie3000 1y ago
> every country should have nukes if they want to be safe
This seems analogous to the idea that every household should have guns if they want to be safe.
- seydor 1y agoExcept that police exists. We willingly relinquish the monopoly of violence to the state that protects us. The world nation stage is anarchic instead, there is no world police, and the strong dominate
- ExoticPearTree 1y agoExcept the police cannot instantly teleport to your location if you are in trouble, hence you have guns to protect yourself until the police arrives.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- RugnirViking 1y agothe calculus that I, everyone I know and care about, and everyone that i've ever heard about, relies upon is that you're far less likely to need to police to teleport instantly to you if our divorced angry next door neighbor don't have a gun for his self defence
- ExoticPearTree 1y agoMaybe not a gun, but an axe or a chainsaw tend to get the job done pretty well. Not as fast, but still. And why a divorced guy living in his house be an issue with your friends or neighbors?
- rapind 1y ago> if our divorced angry next door neighbor Why is “divorced” relevant. Maybe he should be the one worried about NIMBYs.
- RugnirViking 1y agoit's literally a hypothetical person. He studied marketing and made okay money for a while, but he's been out of a job for a bit over a year and a half now too :) His one good friend died a little while ago too. I made a profile of a person that fits the profile of somebody that might be a little angry at society. Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating. For what its worth, there are plenty of guys I know who are divorced, and it was probably the right decision, and they're great people. Most marriages end that way, in fact. It doesn't mean the "divorced jaded man who lost his social place in the world, struggles to find kindness or peers, and lashes out" is a stock character that will go away. It's a real problem
- itishappy 1y agoFun fact: The divorce rate spikes to about 60% for second marriages, but only about 40% of first marriages end in divorce.
- HeyLaughingBoy 1y agoYeahbut, 60% + 40% = 100% :-)
- rapind 1y ago> Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating. Oh god… please fix me. Anyways it read to me like an obvious generalization. My bad if you weren’t. After all, some of your best friends are “x”.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- somenameforme 1y agoThat's based on a misleading "fact." Many people claim that most victims of homicide knew their killer. That's true only when the relationship between the two was known. The most common relationship, by far, is "relationship unknown". [1] You are much more likely to be killed by a stranger or somebody who is "relationship unknown" than anybody else. And furthermore most gun crime is committed by people who do not legally own the firearm being used. [2] I'm loathe to link to that site, but this is an issue that is poorly reported and so it requires exploring a web of data sources, which they actually competently do, on this issue at least. You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates. [1] - https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim... [2] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/...
- lovich 1y ago>You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates. You should take a refresher on statistics and the difference between correlated and causative
- somenameforme 1y agoAnd you should read the post I am responding to. The claim was that there was a correlation between gun ownership a region and your chances of being killed by a gun. When in reality the correlation that exists there is the exact opposite.
- prmoustache 1y agoOn paper that could work if people didn't have children. Problem is it is impossible to combine: - responsible storage of firearms - immediate availability of firearms anywhere at home when faced with hostility Also most gun violence is domestic so having firearms at home do not solve a problem but creates it.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y agoStrong disagree. Education is key, as are not leaving children that are too young to be educated alone where a weapon (not just a gun) is. Curiosity is the number one problem with kids and guns, and that's because we hide them behind a mystique and don't make them understand. But talk to any redneck kid, and guns aren't a big deal, because they've had the mystique removed through education and familiarity.
- grepfru_it 1y agoNot redneck here, but introduced and taught fun safety at a young age. Recently, my kids came down to ask me if they could play with their nerf guns. They had the guns aimed down, finger off the trigger, and already put on the safety glasses. I wiped away a tear knowing that they are responsible with toy guns.
- prmoustache 1y agoNice anecdotal stories aren't worth anything against statistics. Also people can be responsible for years until they aren't. As much as you believe you couldn't hurt someone you love, there is no way you (pr anyone else) can be 100% sure that reality will never change. If there was a way to know, people would be stopped or would surrender their weapons before they commit crimes.
- johnnyanmac 1y agoLike anything else, it's about safety. There's all sorts of dangerous stuff in a household, like a stove. You don't lock them up, you teach kids thst stoves are hot and not to touch them. That said: lock up your guns. Your mid will probably survive a stove burn.
- matt-attack 1y agoExcept you’ve been tricked if you think the ruler of police is to protect you. Despite the little sticker on their car, the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the police HAVE NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect you out anyone. That’s just not their role nor responsibility. To think otherwise is to linger in a fantasy world.
- kube-system 1y agoPolice protect through deterrence
- IOT_Apprentice 1y agoThrough violence & zero accountability.
- maest 1y agoNot all countries are like the US
- etiennebausson 1y agoThat is true in the U.S., but there are plenty of country where the cops do protect civilians. In most case, it is the same countries that give adequate training to their cops, a not-so-surprising correlation.
- somenameforme 1y agoI expect that the frequency of violent crime is predictive of police behavior towards crime. When it's rare, then it's easy and reasonable to take a highly idealistic approach. When it's frequent you have to deal with uncomfortable practical issues like whether an officer should prioritize your survival, or their own. There's a line where heroics turn into suicidality, and that's largely driven by frequency.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y agoThe state will only protect you under certain circumstances. You're far better off being able to protect yourself, and pray you never have to.
- IOT_Apprentice 1y agoThe police aren’t here to protect citizens, courts here have ruled on this. Police are an extension of corporate power & the wealthy. The LA Sheriff’s Department is filled with police gangs. We’ve seen the footage of the police brutalizing peaceful protestors beating them with clubs, riding over them repeatedly with horses. The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations.
- FireBeyond 1y ago> The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations. It takes more time and training to be certified as a hairdresser in most parts of the US than it does a cop.
- tim-kt 1y agoIt's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun use, but under stricter conditions. The majority agrees that this is right, so the system works. What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.
- margorczynski 1y ago> I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people You're naive. The police (or whatever you call it) is meant for inward force projection of the state. Your security is not the main concern. Besides the police works too slowly to truly protect you when SHTF. Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
- tsimionescu 1y ago> Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead. This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 1y agoNobody has knives? Axes? Baseball bats? Where do you live, I wanna come visit. > This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home Citation needed, because I highly doubt you're correct.
- tsimionescu 1y agoPeople who rob you with baseball bats and axes, and don't even think about the possibility that you'll have a gun, don't feel the need to kill you at any suspicious twitch. The axes and knives and baseball bats are there to have clear superiority, and they know you can't really harm them. So, unless you actually try to fight, you're quite safe from a physical perspective. Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension. Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery. You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
- eproxus 1y agoIn properly safe countries this is of course not true. But sadly the world stage still seems to be on the development level of ”lawless neighborhood” so there’s some merit to the idea (not that it is necessarily the best way forward though).
- thunky 1y agoIf someone knows you are heavily armed will they be more or less likely to attack you?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- MSFT_Edging 1y agoPlease note ICE is doing operations in blue cities against law abiding immigrants at hearings because to go after either actual criminals or the gun infested red areas would be a danger to life and limb. Turns out, making yourself a more dangerous target works to an extent.
- erkt 1y agoICE must cast a wide net in blue cities because they are not sharing data on the criminal undocumented residents. They are shielding the illegal migrants who are already in jail or released on bond. Red areas are not shielding their criminal element and there is less need for such a wide net. Sanctuary cities ignoring the constitution and delegation of powers to do whatever they want is causing much of the escalation.
- dreghgh 1y agoCan you clarify which part of the constitution is being ignored here?
- righthand 1y agoYou will love this amendment (14th) from the US Constitution then, it’s a banger with it’s opening text that describes how states are responsible for protecting the people in their borders and giving them due process, citizen or not: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You know because it’s hard to make a case about being a country of rights, due process, law and order if you don’t extend that to the people within it’s borders. The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.
- nickff 1y ago
- crystal_revenge 1y agoThe point parent is in making is that this strike against Iran demonstrates, that yes indeed you do need nukes to be safe and that's one of the major risks of this action. Going with your analogy, this would be the same as if police basically ignored all home invasion/trespassing laws such that the only houses that criminals entered were in fact those of undefended home owners. In this scenario, it would be demonstrated, by this policy, that yes home owners need to own guns to be safe. To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true. The lesson of Ukraine and Iran is that, if you don't have nuclear weapons, your sovereignty is always at the mercy of nations that do. A world where every country needs nuclear weapons to remain sovereign is similarly undesirable (on a larger scale) to a country where every home needs to have guns to be safe. However we're on a path with nuclear weapons where that is unfortunately not the reality we are creating.
- nradov 1y agoA handful of nuclear weapons won't keep a country safe. They would also need a credible second-strike deterrent. Relations between sovereign states are fundamentally anarchic. There are no world police. The UN and other international institutions have little or no real power, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is only enforceable through kinetic action by other countries when it suits their interests.
- twelve40 1y agoNK can have a handful of submarine-based missiles that threaten to wipe out say Seoul or LA for example, even after the first strike. It's not a guarantee by any means but it does raise the bar and would probably prevent a situation like the current one.
- XorNot 1y agoNK kept itself safe for decades with just a lot of artillery aimed at Seoul. Second strike weapons are in some ways a holdover from Cold War strategic thinking which it's sort of acknowledged probably overestimated the penchant of any side to engage in a first strike. The practical reality of nuclear war planning has generally been that no one will accept even a single city-buster landing - and no first strike option is really reliable enough to guarantee you didn't miss one.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago6 months ago I woildnt have disagreed. Be ause law enforcement had guns for you. But if law enforcement is not only not doing their job but actively threatening you: well, I guess 2A won this time.
- Ferret7446 1y agoThat analogy fails due to the sheer power of nuclear weapons. A comparable analogy would be that every household should have an Abrams tank.
- JohnBooty 1y agoKinda sorta in some ways, vastly different in others. The differences are so extreme it's a waste of time to discuss the analogy further.