The Argument for Guns

[Biff Tannen]

This. Remember we still have not won in Afghanistan.

What exactly would constitute victory in Afghanistan?

Actually, nevermind. We'll stay on topic, but victory in Afghanistan and victory in a theoretical domestic uprising are really not the same thing, however you define victory.

 

[Deacon923]

Given the incredible human costs that are evident in modern armed rebellions, there is a reasonable argument to be made that the far more humane course is to disarm the populace to prevent them from getting the idea that such a thing is a good idea. That's not a very popular idea in 'Murica because our national narrative is based on a successful and relatively low-impact armed rebellion, led by a group of idealistic scholar-warriors. That fact pattern is pretty much unique in the history of the world, and almost any other example of an armed rebellion (especially since the advent of modern weaponry) indicates that peaceful protest and other political efforts will be a much better choice for the population of any given nation.

 

[RJKarl]

That's right you don't know. I know that because you immediately disimissed what I said as "fucking absurd" and assumed we're talking about large scale head to head warfare instead of at least asking in a reasonable way what I was talking about. (of course given general tunnels discourse, I suppose your response isn't unusual)

Again, preserving the RIGHT to bear arms is important. The right to bear arms gives people power. I'm not talking about the ability to stage a coup on a government that has tanks, planes, etc with handguns and rifles. I'm talking about a deterrent on a government becoming oppressive in the first place. (deterrent because a citizenry with access to arms will be quite difficult to oppress).
Now you're more than welcome to say, "I hear what you're saying, but I think that it has no chance of happening", or "I think the human costs isn't worth the "protection" that having guns affords". Both of those are understandable statements and I can't argue with them other than to say I disagree.

Your having guns or 100M people having guns is absolutely no deterrent to any government that could think about "oppressing" US citizenry. None and never would.

Those who would think about doing as you think they would could wipe out a few neighborhoods or enclaves of where they know guns are and threaten to do the same across the country. They could also give bounties to turn people in as is done in most oppressive nations.

For such a group to think about taking power they would have to have a significant amount of support with the military, the police and general citizenry. Thus your group would already be marginalized.

Your point has no validity. It's a bumper sticker in the modern world.

 

[bigdoublezero]

Given the incredible human costs that are evident in modern armed rebellions, there is a reasonable argument to be made that the far more humane course is to disarm the populace to prevent them from getting the idea that such a thing is a good idea. That's not a very popular idea in 'Murica because our national narrative is based on a successful and relatively low-impact armed rebellion, led by a group of idealistic scholar-warriors. That fact pattern is pretty much unique in the history of the world, and almost any other example of an armed rebellion (especially since the advent of modern weaponry) indicates that peaceful protest and other political efforts will be a much better choice for the population of any given nation.

See the American Civil War.

 

[Baconwfu]

So basically, baconwfu, you believe citizens could hold off the military as long as the military fights the war you want them to fight. Deterrent is ridiculous. It's not like militaries all over the world only engage in wars with countries with strong gun control.

And awaken, bringing up Afghanistan is a LOL comparison. That's not apples and oranges. That's apples and a can of paint.

bacon, what restrictions (if any) do you believe there should be on the right to bear arms?

No
I'm saying the right to bear arms gives people power. Oppressive governments spring up because people don't have enough power. You guys seem to want to jump to the "No way normal people could win a war against the Military". I'm not talking about winning a war. I'm talking about the power that the right to bear arms gives people. You don't have to be brandishing or even own a gun to have that power....just have have to have the ability to do so.

I'm fine with reasonable restrictions on gun ownership...limited clips? Fine, whatever. Background checks? Great! (I suppose as long as it's not extreme like...oh you got a speeding ticket 10 years ago....no gun for you!) No guns for Felons? I can't understand how anyone could argue against that.

 

[Deacon923]

I just don't think there is any historical evidence for your position, Bacon.

There were plenty of guns in pre-Revolutionary America. There were plenty of guns in pre-Hitler Germany. There was no shortage of guns in Syria, Iraq, or any of a number of African countries with crappy governments. On the other hand, for the last several decades, gun ownership has been very restricted in most economically developed countries with very little evidence that disarming the populace led to tyranny. in fact, most of those Western European countries without guns have a greater respect for their citizens' rights, in a lot of ways, than America does with its insanely high incarceration rates and NSA shenanigans.

It's not that I don't understand your theory, I just don't think there's much in the way of empirical support for it. Absent that support, it's hard to give it much weight in the regulation vs. gun freedom debate.

 

[IrishSlim]

What is this fantasyland "power" you keep referring to?

It's a slippery slope

And yeah, anyone advocating for a "gun in every household" has never actually spent time in a society that, you know, has a gun in every household.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

I just don't think there is any historical evidence for your position, Bacon.

There were plenty of guns in pre-Revolutionary America. There were plenty of guns in pre-Hitler Germany. There was no shortage of guns in Syria, Iraq, or any of a number of African countries with crappy governments. On the other hand, for the last several decades, gun ownership has been very restricted in most economically developed countries with very little evidence that disarming the populace led to tyranny. in fact, most of those Western European countries without guns have a greater respect for their citizens' rights, in a lot of ways, than America does with its insanely high incarceration rates and NSA shenanigans.

It's not that I don't understand your theory, I just don't think there's much in the way of empirical support for it. Absent that support, it's hard to give it much weight in the regulation vs. gun freedom debate.

Very good point

 

[deacphan]

Keep shotguns and rifles with limited capacities for hunting and home protection. Get rid of handguns and anything that can shoot more than 4 times without re-loading.

this is essentially where i was headed. these have arguable utility.

 

[Baconwfu]

What is this fantasyland "power" you keep referring to?

The ability to influence others
In the same way Freedom of speech gives power. You can have a nut standing on a street corner spouting crazy shit and no one pays him any attention and he's just a nut. On the other hand you can have someone speak out against something they perceive as and injustice and it strikes a cord with others and starts to gain momemtum and eventually changes things.
Likewise, you can have some guys holed up in a bunker somewhere in Montana, shooting at (and eventually succumbing to) the government because they feel they've been wronged and everyone probably (rightfully so) thinks they are nuts. Conversely (and it's hard to imagine today given the society we live in) you could do something similar, except it strikes a cord with others (instead of people thinking they're nut) and catches on and changes things. That's just one off the cuff example. But really for a potentially oppressive (but not necessarily already oppressive) government, having the potential for armed citizens limits (i.e influences) just how oppressive/unjust that government can be.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I agree with jhmd on this thread. Is this real life?

 

[dmcheatw]

I'm sorry, Lurker, but people who can afford to go to Wake Forest really don't understand the definition of "The American Citizens". They belong to a teeny-tiny privileged & elitist subset of "The American Citizens". They are not among the 47 million of those citizens who do not have healthcare coverage....and are, for the most part, incapable of really having any empathy with those people who are far less fortunate than they.

If you are looking for a cross-section of the views of "The American Citizens", you aren't going to find it on a Wake Forest chatboard.

this is for the most part correct imo. the notion that you can't really understand something until you've walked those shoes, but you can pay lip service to "understanding" is one of my core philosophies. socrates was wise based on knowing what he didn't know, instead of thinking he knew a thing when he really didn't.

I agree with your post, but would say the argument for protection from government (at least in my eyes) isn't necessarily protection from the US government as it stands, but as a check against some potential oppressive regime that could form in the future.
I would think any American who says, "I own guns to protect myself from my government" is batshit crazy because the US government isn't oppressing people to the point where they need to take up arms against it and any attempt to do so is insane. However, I would agree that the right to gun ownership is a check on the power that any future government has over it's people. There is an important distinction.

not everybody sees it that way, and you don't need to be a fanatic, in the typical sense, to do battle with america. plus if you think a 17 shot glock is going to help you when it's already obsolete for the purpose you reference, idk what to tell you.

i thought you were going to say "guns are a check against a foreign regime" which i would agree with as it makes occupying the U.S. w/o popular consent impossible--kind of like policing iraq. this is the best thing i can figure all these guns do for us. If the U.S. were ever invaded it would be impossible to occupy or administer in the long term.

Even if you did, Janet Reno will light your house on fire and drive over the burning corpses of your children with an armored tank.

sad, true, and hilarious all at once.

as an aside power comes from cell phone cameras and youtube. it's the quill of the 21st century, and it's even more powerful than traditional pen and paper.

 

[jhmd2000]

I agree with jhmd on this thread. Is this real life?

I'm wise beyond your years. It's going to happen more and more as time marches on.

 

[WFU Lurker]

this is for the most part correct imo. the notion that you can't really understand something until you've walked those shoes, but you can pay lip service to "understanding" is one of my core philosophies. socrates was wise based on knowing what he didn't know, instead of thinking he knew a thing when he really didn't.

The problem is that he's ranting at elitism while also saying he knows better for the American citizens than they do (per Gallup, ACA has a 54% disapprove versus 43% approve) so which is it?

95% of the discussion on this board consists of elites talking about issues that don't directly impact them. But bkf doesn't have a problem with that since most people on here are of the same persuasion as he is

ETA: okay, 95% is probably hyperbole given that the topic of the thread, of the climate change thread, etc do indeed directly impact all American citizens, regardless of privilege (although with a disproportional impact for lower socioeconomic classes).

 

[Baconwfu]

I just don't think there is any historical evidence for your position, Bacon.

There were plenty of guns in pre-Revolutionary America. There were plenty of guns in pre-Hitler Germany. There was no shortage of guns in Syria, Iraq, or any of a number of African countries with crappy governments. On the other hand, for the last several decades, gun ownership has been very restricted in most economically developed countries with very little evidence that disarming the populace led to tyranny. in fact, most of those Western European countries without guns have a greater respect for their citizens' rights, in a lot of ways, than America does with its insanely high incarceration rates and NSA shenanigans.

It's not that I don't understand your theory, I just don't think there's much in the way of empirical support for it. Absent that support, it's hard to give it much weight in the regulation vs. gun freedom debate.

I can understand where you're coming from and feel that's a reasonable statement to make and those are good points. I'll throw some thoughts at some, such as in Africa life is cheap, and unfortunately when life is cheap the cost benefit for a crappy government changes (i.e. the government can keep throwing bodies at it's problems and that really doesn't make the political costs too high, where as when people have a high value on life governments aren't just going to wantonly throw bodies at their problems or else they'll face political fallout). I don't know about guns in pre WWII Germany, but one thing there was the mania/large scale political acceptance of Nazism and demonization of the Jews, so even if the Jews were able to defend themselves I wonder if political will of the vast majority of the country would've have doomed them anyway.
It's difficult to empirically support something like this because there are so many other factors involved and thus making "data" points difficult to compare

 

[Deacon923]

It's difficult to empirically support something like this because there are so many other factors involved and thus making "data" points difficult to compare

Which is pretty much my point. The empirical data on the other side of the scale is 32,000 dead Americans every year. That's a pretty big weight, compared to something that is largely speculative.

 

[dmcheatw]

The problem is that he's ranting at elitism while also saying he knows better for the American citizens than they do (per Gallup, ACA has a 54% disapprove versus 43% approve) so which is it?

95% of the discussion on this board consists of elites talking about issues that don't directly impact them. But bkf doesn't have a problem with that since most people on here are of the same persuasion as he is

ETA: okay, 95% is probably hyperbole given that the topic of the thread, of the climate change thread, etc do indeed directly impact all American citizens, regardless of privilege (although with a disproportional impact for lower socioeconomic classes).

I think i better understand what you meant now.

 

[Baconwfu]

Which is pretty much my point. The empirical data on the other side of the scale is 32,000 dead Americans every year. That's a pretty big weight, compared to something that is largely speculative.

That's fine, i guess during the typing of my argument I may have been trying to change people's mind, but really I guess my point isn't to change your (anyone's) mind as much as propose an "argument for guns". It doesn't even seem like you're a person who needs convincing as you're not anti-gun, but I guess you said you didn't like the anti-gubmint angle and that's actually one that I feel is legit, at least in theory, although I certainly recognize it's a difficult argument to swallow given the times we live in.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

The pen is mightier than the sword.

 

[WFU Lurker]

Public opinion can be...and is...manipulated & distorted by massively funded PR campaigns. This is why the Republican Party is constantly trying to eliminate campaign contribution limits for political elections. Nevertheless, ACA is working....in spite of one of the most heavily funded, malicious attacks against it by the GOP and its lobbyists, who are motivated by financial interests & political power, rather than what is in the best interests of the majority of the American people.

And perhaps nowhere in the country is there better evidence that ACA is working than with Kynect in solid Republican Kentucky. In spite of the irrational hatred for President Obama in that state...and the PR campaign that has tried to discredit ACA there...we have seen Mitch McConnell talk out of both sides of his mouth now regarding ACA & Kynect....because, while he won't publicly admit it, of course, he knows that ACA has been a great thing for thousands & thousands of people in his state.

Ah, I see, so only smart people like you are able to cut through the PR bullshit? And obviously PR bullshit is unique to Republicans.