5 ms·

A revolution that worked: American Revolution. By some measures, it began in Lexington (the linked Economist column is "Lexington"), when the British governmen

by ISL 14y ago

A revolution that worked: American Revolution. By some measures, it began in Lexington (the linked Economist column is "Lexington"), when the British government moved to seize citizens' arms. We must better understand how it is that those who would choose to harm many people reach such a decision. Guns are a tool. So was anthrax, in the post-9/11 mail scare, and it could have been much worse. Mutual respect, understanding, education, kindness, and vigilance are our greatest bulwarks against tragedy. Banning guns won't solve the problem.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
richo 14y ago
You're right, distributing them with wild abandon is working perfectly. As you were.
phpnode 14y ago
Guns are tools that kill. They have no other purpose. How anyone can defend the concept of gun ownership in a civilised society is genuinely beyond me.
- dexen 14y ago
  > Guns are tools that kill. They have no other purpose. The other† purpose is to keep countries and people in check. The mere ability to immediately use firearms is enough to stop a lot of possible troublemakers. A country keeps armed forces: military and border guard to keep external actors in check, police to keep unruly citizens in check. A private person keeps arms to keep in check potential burglars, assailants etc., and any other actor who could come in force, of which there are some historical examples discussed in other posts. † aside of the sporting, hunting and collector activities.
  - skyhook_mockups 14y ago
    I have no problem with the military and police having access to weapons. They are (or should be) highly trained, Psych tested and they work within a regulated, highly structured, hierarchical organisation. All of this serves to keep the wanton violence (almost completely) in check. The issue arises when every schmoe off the street can go in and purchase a fully automatic, purpose built people killing machine. I also don't buy the people vs. the government scenario you allude to. Could you really picture a reality where a group of citizens could overthrow the US government just because they had some AK47s? In the event of run-away government, a far more rational and realistic scenario would be for mass protests that essentially halt the economy over night. There are countless examples of almost completely bloodless revolutions happening in exactly this manner (Polish Solidarnosc and more recently Egypt during the Arab Spring immediately come to mind). The alternative is a bloody coup which usually ends in civil war or military dictatorship.
Gatsky 14y ago
That's a lovely notion, but time and time again, harm minimisation has been the only successful method to deal with issues like this (eg needle exchanges for IV drug users, allowing abortion to prevent women dying awful deaths from botched backyard attempts). I'm happy for you to start a worldwide movement to end violence and abolish mental illness, but until then, I would rather that nobody has the ability to murder large numbers of people when they feel like it. And seriously, how many people can successfully weaponise anthrax?
skyhook_mockups 14y ago
My perspective is different since I come from a country with a different culture. Here in Australia there is essentially zero gun ownership by private citizens. We also had a gun buyback (1996) and changes in legislation after the Port Arthur massacre[1]. Basically, I would feel really nervous just being in the same room as a gun. So from my perspective statements such as 'Guns are a tool' just don't wash. They are the only tool that comes to mind that are specifically designed to kill humans. There is no other use (besides sport shooting) that I can think of for a handgun. The same goes for high powered fully automatic military style rifles. Zero use for hunting an animal, perfectly tailored for hunting humans. That's disturbing to me, and I wouldn't want to live in a society that vehemently fights for the right to bear these arms. Of course it is better to fix the root cause (mental illness, lack of empathy, education etc). Fighting the root is really hard and will take America generations of effort. Removing semi and full auto weapons can be done over night (the actual effectiveness could be argued ad nauseam, but at least the laws could be in place and some claw back of the 300 million odd weapons could begin). Psychos would still rampage, but there's a lot less damage you can do if you only have a knife, or you have to reload after each shot. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_P... PS: I'd be happy to be corrected, but from the little I know about the issue, the meaning of 'right to bear arms' in the US constitution has been twisted away from the original intent of organised and well disciplined militias, to: hey look ma I bought a M16 from Walmart today hur hur
- angersock 14y ago
  Please educate yourself about American gun availability before you give the wing nuts a reason to discredit your point. We do not sell automatic weapons without a whoooole lot of paperwork and money, we could not remove the weapons overnight, and your Walmart example is tasteless.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Automatic vs semi-automatics is brought up frequently. The simple fact is that for killing a bunch of people in an enclosed space a semi-automatic is the 'right' kind of weapon, full-auto would actually be a lot less efficient. You'd run through your ammo quicker and you'd put many rounds into the walls and the ceiling.
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Another revolution that worked: the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia - non-violent, no guns. And another: the Egyptian revolution last year. Or the 2003 revolution in Georgia. Or 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, and I could go on. All successful, all non-violent, all more recent than the American Revolution. Seriously, if you think you need guns to defend yourself, you're basically saying you live in a state which has failed worse than communist era Czechoslovakia or Egypt under an effective dictatorship.
- taylodl 14y ago
  So how are things going in Syria?
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Considerably more dead on both sides than during the non-violent revolutions. Just think, if you'd given the Egyptian's guns that could have been a bloodbath too.

by ISL 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

richo 14y ago

You're right, distributing them with wild abandon is working perfectly. As you were.

phpnode 14y ago

Guns are tools that kill. They have no other purpose. How anyone can defend the concept of gun ownership in a civilised society is genuinely beyond me.

dexen 14y ago
> Guns are tools that kill. They have no other purpose. The other† purpose is to keep countries and people in check. The mere ability to immediately use firearms is enough to stop a lot of possible troublemakers. A country keeps armed forces: military and border guard to keep external actors in check, police to keep unruly citizens in check. A private person keeps arms to keep in check potential burglars, assailants etc., and any other actor who could come in force, of which there are some historical examples discussed in other posts. † aside of the sporting, hunting and collector activities.
- skyhook_mockups 14y ago
  I have no problem with the military and police having access to weapons. They are (or should be) highly trained, Psych tested and they work within a regulated, highly structured, hierarchical organisation. All of this serves to keep the wanton violence (almost completely) in check. The issue arises when every schmoe off the street can go in and purchase a fully automatic, purpose built people killing machine. I also don't buy the people vs. the government scenario you allude to. Could you really picture a reality where a group of citizens could overthrow the US government just because they had some AK47s? In the event of run-away government, a far more rational and realistic scenario would be for mass protests that essentially halt the economy over night. There are countless examples of almost completely bloodless revolutions happening in exactly this manner (Polish Solidarnosc and more recently Egypt during the Arab Spring immediately come to mind). The alternative is a bloody coup which usually ends in civil war or military dictatorship.

Gatsky 14y ago

That's a lovely notion, but time and time again, harm minimisation has been the only successful method to deal with issues like this (eg needle exchanges for IV drug users, allowing abortion to prevent women dying awful deaths from botched backyard attempts). I'm happy for you to start a worldwide movement to end violence and abolish mental illness, but until then, I would rather that nobody has the ability to murder large numbers of people when they feel like it. And seriously, how many people can successfully weaponise anthrax?

skyhook_mockups 14y ago

My perspective is different since I come from a country with a different culture. Here in Australia there is essentially zero gun ownership by private citizens. We also had a gun buyback (1996) and changes in legislation after the Port Arthur massacre[1]. Basically, I would feel really nervous just being in the same room as a gun. So from my perspective statements such as 'Guns are a tool' just don't wash. They are the only tool that comes to mind that are specifically designed to kill humans. There is no other use (besides sport shooting) that I can think of for a handgun. The same goes for high powered fully automatic military style rifles. Zero use for hunting an animal, perfectly tailored for hunting humans. That's disturbing to me, and I wouldn't want to live in a society that vehemently fights for the right to bear these arms. Of course it is better to fix the root cause (mental illness, lack of empathy, education etc). Fighting the root is really hard and will take America generations of effort. Removing semi and full auto weapons can be done over night (the actual effectiveness could be argued ad nauseam, but at least the laws could be in place and some claw back of the 300 million odd weapons could begin). Psychos would still rampage, but there's a lot less damage you can do if you only have a knife, or you have to reload after each shot. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_P... PS: I'd be happy to be corrected, but from the little I know about the issue, the meaning of 'right to bear arms' in the US constitution has been twisted away from the original intent of organised and well disciplined militias, to: hey look ma I bought a M16 from Walmart today hur hur

angersock 14y ago
Please educate yourself about American gun availability before you give the wing nuts a reason to discredit your point. We do not sell automatic weapons without a whoooole lot of paperwork and money, we could not remove the weapons overnight, and your Walmart example is tasteless.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Automatic vs semi-automatics is brought up frequently. The simple fact is that for killing a bunch of people in an enclosed space a semi-automatic is the 'right' kind of weapon, full-auto would actually be a lot less efficient. You'd run through your ammo quicker and you'd put many rounds into the walls and the ceiling.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago

Another revolution that worked: the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia - non-violent, no guns. And another: the Egyptian revolution last year. Or the 2003 revolution in Georgia. Or 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, and I could go on. All successful, all non-violent, all more recent than the American Revolution. Seriously, if you think you need guns to defend yourself, you're basically saying you live in a state which has failed worse than communist era Czechoslovakia or Egypt under an effective dictatorship.

taylodl 14y ago
So how are things going in Syria?
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Considerably more dead on both sides than during the non-violent revolutions. Just think, if you'd given the Egyptian's guns that could have been a bloodbath too.