3 ms·

> The solution? Get people actually talking to each other. Agreed, but at the same time, disparaging the OP for having to address rhetoric (that old saw) seems

by bmelton 13y ago

> The solution? Get people actually talking to each other. Agreed, but at the same time, disparaging the OP for having to address rhetoric (that old saw) seems antithetical to that aim. Yes, gun violence decreased in Australia when they banned guns. Violence did not. Violence, to me, seems to be specific enough an objective that specialization isn't needed. I understand why oncologists specialize in curing cancer, as that is their field of expertise. I do not understand why gun control advocates feel that specialization is necessary with violence, if the net effect is the same with or without them. I believe that is the point that aaronem was trying to make; not that he was trying to be pithy. For what it's worth, I'm pretty hard-line on the second amendment, and I see value in the second amendment as a tool for the preservation of freedom. If a law were passed that banned possession of a firearm that I already owned, and/or required a mandatory buyback of that firearm, I would probably become a felon for violating that law as I would deem that law unconstitutional. That said, if the 2nd amendment were repealed, I would cede my firearms. That doesn't necessarily say anything on its own, but frames the rest of what I'm about to say; which is that presumably, every responsible gun owner would also like to see a reduction in gun-related crimes, even more so than the average gun control advocates, and it boggles my mind that gun control advocates seem to focus on gun crimes specifically, to the detriment of all other forms of crime, while gun rights advocates seem to do the exact opposite. You'd think the tables would be turned, as gun owners have the most vested interest.

rdtsc 13y ago
> and I see value in the second amendment as a tool for the preservation of freedom. I hear that often. How do you see that happening? What is the reasoning? I wasn't born here and I keep hearing this point touted often. Maybe it is something obvious, I haven't learnt yet. They way I see it presented is "we have guns so we can preserve our Freedom". Freedom from who? Some seem to think it is from criminals taking our possessions, some think it is from government. Which one do you think of when you think "freedom". If it is the later (and probably the more common interpretation), doesn't seem unreasonable that for guns to be a viable threat or worry-some thing for the government to fear, it would have to match the parity guns had in, oh I don't know, early 1800s? A group of 1000 militia men armed with guns vs 1000 government soldiers armed with guns. I can see that play out well. 1000 men armed with AR-15s vs a nuclear arsenal, tanks, helicopters, machine guns, an intelligence apparatus, total media and public transportation control, satellites, 100s and 100s of billions of dollars in budget. Why are guns even mentioned as a "protection of freedom" when Government is that one freedom is protected? Seems rather like a joke to me (but again maybe I am missing an obvious argument here). Counter-arguments I can think of and heard before -- "oh but this would be a guerrilla warfare that is why AR-15 and hunting rifles and pistols would be effective", so "need a nuclear arsenal" doesn't apply here. My response to that is "how would guns help". Wouldn't it then be more about guerrilla tactics (or maybe terrorist tactics, depending which side is talking about it). IEDs, poisoning water supplies, sabotage, home-made rockets etc. And again there having or not having legal guns seems to make little difference. What am I missing?
- bmelton 13y ago
  > How do you see that happening? What is the reasoning? There are numerous stories throughout history wherein firearms were used to protect against oppression. In some cases, those firearms were used against governments, nation-states, guerrilla forces, insurgents, etc. In other cases, they have failed. Regardless, the odds are dramatically skewed when one side has guns and the others don't. Reductio ad Hitlerum, before "Germany" became "Nazi Germany", there was far less in the way of gun control. The regime prior to Hitler had made gun control a priority, so the citizen was generally not armed. Before Hitler began committing genocide against Jews, he actually loosened gun control regulations... for everybody that wasn't Jewish. I'll spare you the remainder of the details, with which I'm sure you're at least somewhat familiar. Before Hitler, there was a Revolution in the 1700s from some would-be sovereigns that claimed Independence from Britain. Before that revolution, the redcoats attempted to seize the arms that would later become the implements of war by the militia. In some cases they were successful. In either case, Americans found that they hadn't been armed enough, and later had to entreat with France for more arms to be provided. Long story short, then America was born. These are not particularly unique stories. There are many stories where governments have committed genocide en masse. There are less stories where those governments enacted gun control and disarmed citizens prior to committing that genocide. There are fewer still stories where those citizens were not disarmed, and of those, there are stories where the citizenry was able to escape from, defray, deter, or even prevent those catastrophes from occurring. > doesn't seem unreasonable that for guns to be a viable threat or worry-some thing for the government to fear Quite probably, yes. That doesn't mean that the gun will be the only implement. It's probably even more so now, but let's not forget how out-gunned we were compared to Britain. But despite the improbability, we won that. It's also worth noting that you might not be fighting against the federal government, but perhaps a local government, or rogue police officers. The "Battle of Athens"[1] occurred in the 40s, and was fought against a corrupt county level government. > And again there having or not having legal guns seems to make little difference. What am I missing? That the objective need not necessarily be "to defeat the US military". A successful outcome might be to defend against slaughter just long enough to escape, as some Jews did in Germany that had hidden their firearms from confiscation. A successful outcome might be to simply highlight that the US government is waging war to the general populace. There are a variety of successful outcomes between "die" and "successfully defeat the entire armed forces with my shotgun" that could be attained. An all-out war between the federal government and the US citizenry is definitely a lop-sided battle. Drones operate out of range of being shot down, and even the assaultiest assault weapon does little damage against a tank or armored vehicle. That said, that's the least likely type of skirmish to occur. For 1) the US government isn't likely to declare any such type of war, nor could they easily justify it, even with media control. What is more likely to happen is something like the Japanese Internment, or a WACO style of incident. Even in those cases, our odds are slim of obtaining an outright 'win', but holding off attackers long enough for the media to catch on that the government is trying to kill you might be? Etc. [1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

by bmelton 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago

> and I see value in the second amendment as a tool for the preservation of freedom. I hear that often. How do you see that happening? What is the reasoning? I wasn't born here and I keep hearing this point touted often. Maybe it is something obvious, I haven't learnt yet. They way I see it presented is "we have guns so we can preserve our Freedom". Freedom from who? Some seem to think it is from criminals taking our possessions, some think it is from government. Which one do you think of when you think "freedom". If it is the later (and probably the more common interpretation), doesn't seem unreasonable that for guns to be a viable threat or worry-some thing for the government to fear, it would have to match the parity guns had in, oh I don't know, early 1800s? A group of 1000 militia men armed with guns vs 1000 government soldiers armed with guns. I can see that play out well. 1000 men armed with AR-15s vs a nuclear arsenal, tanks, helicopters, machine guns, an intelligence apparatus, total media and public transportation control, satellites, 100s and 100s of billions of dollars in budget. Why are guns even mentioned as a "protection of freedom" when Government is that one freedom is protected? Seems rather like a joke to me (but again maybe I am missing an obvious argument here). Counter-arguments I can think of and heard before -- "oh but this would be a guerrilla warfare that is why AR-15 and hunting rifles and pistols would be effective", so "need a nuclear arsenal" doesn't apply here. My response to that is "how would guns help". Wouldn't it then be more about guerrilla tactics (or maybe terrorist tactics, depending which side is talking about it). IEDs, poisoning water supplies, sabotage, home-made rockets etc. And again there having or not having legal guns seems to make little difference. What am I missing?

bmelton 13y ago
> How do you see that happening? What is the reasoning? There are numerous stories throughout history wherein firearms were used to protect against oppression. In some cases, those firearms were used against governments, nation-states, guerrilla forces, insurgents, etc. In other cases, they have failed. Regardless, the odds are dramatically skewed when one side has guns and the others don't. Reductio ad Hitlerum, before "Germany" became "Nazi Germany", there was far less in the way of gun control. The regime prior to Hitler had made gun control a priority, so the citizen was generally not armed. Before Hitler began committing genocide against Jews, he actually loosened gun control regulations... for everybody that wasn't Jewish. I'll spare you the remainder of the details, with which I'm sure you're at least somewhat familiar. Before Hitler, there was a Revolution in the 1700s from some would-be sovereigns that claimed Independence from Britain. Before that revolution, the redcoats attempted to seize the arms that would later become the implements of war by the militia. In some cases they were successful. In either case, Americans found that they hadn't been armed enough, and later had to entreat with France for more arms to be provided. Long story short, then America was born. These are not particularly unique stories. There are many stories where governments have committed genocide en masse. There are less stories where those governments enacted gun control and disarmed citizens prior to committing that genocide. There are fewer still stories where those citizens were not disarmed, and of those, there are stories where the citizenry was able to escape from, defray, deter, or even prevent those catastrophes from occurring. > doesn't seem unreasonable that for guns to be a viable threat or worry-some thing for the government to fear Quite probably, yes. That doesn't mean that the gun will be the only implement. It's probably even more so now, but let's not forget how out-gunned we were compared to Britain. But despite the improbability, we won that. It's also worth noting that you might not be fighting against the federal government, but perhaps a local government, or rogue police officers. The "Battle of Athens"[1] occurred in the 40s, and was fought against a corrupt county level government. > And again there having or not having legal guns seems to make little difference. What am I missing? That the objective need not necessarily be "to defeat the US military". A successful outcome might be to defend against slaughter just long enough to escape, as some Jews did in Germany that had hidden their firearms from confiscation. A successful outcome might be to simply highlight that the US government is waging war to the general populace. There are a variety of successful outcomes between "die" and "successfully defeat the entire armed forces with my shotgun" that could be attained. An all-out war between the federal government and the US citizenry is definitely a lop-sided battle. Drones operate out of range of being shot down, and even the assaultiest assault weapon does little damage against a tank or armored vehicle. That said, that's the least likely type of skirmish to occur. For 1) the US government isn't likely to declare any such type of war, nor could they easily justify it, even with media control. What is more likely to happen is something like the Japanese Internment, or a WACO style of incident. Even in those cases, our odds are slim of obtaining an outright 'win', but holding off attackers long enough for the media to catch on that the government is trying to kill you might be? Etc. [1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm